BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Consideration of Bill opposed and deferred until Tuesday 30 April (Standing Order No. 20).

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Ordered,
	That the promoters of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords], which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in Session 2007–08 on 22 January 2008, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Standing Order 188A (Suspension of Bills).—(The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]

Ordered,
	That the promoters of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords], which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in Session 2010–12 on 24 January 2011, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Standing Order 188A (Suspension of Bills).—(The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Humber Bridge Bill

Ordered,
	That the promoters of the Humber Bridge Bill, which was originally introduced in this House in this Session, on 22 January 2013, should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament according to the provisions of Standing Order 188A (Suspension of Bills).—(The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

EU Free Trade Agreements

Kevin Barron: What progress has been made on the negotiation of European Union free trade agreements.

William Hague: The EU has concluded free trade negotiations with Singapore and has launched negotiations with Japan, and EU-Canada negotiations
	are also in their final stages. An EU-United States free trade agreement would constitute a major contribution to economic growth, and is a top priority for the Government.

Kevin Barron: Given that the Government were unable to secure significant reform of the common agricultural policy negotiations on the seven-year EU budget deal, what prospect is there is that the Foreign Secretary will be able to make progress on the EU-US free trade agreement?

William Hague: I think that there is a very real prospect of progress in that regard. There is commitment and real political will on both sides of the Atlantic. The European Commission has published its draft negotiating mandate, and President Obama has spoken about the matter. As an agreement with the United States is potentially worth more than £100 billion a year to European Union economies, we will put an enormous amount of effort into this.

Richard Ottaway: As the Foreign Secretary said, the holy grail of EU free trade agreements is the one with the United States, which would create a world-beating single market and a substantial number of jobs, and would help to increase the EU’s gross domestic product. Does he agree that we would look pretty dumb if we were leaving the EU just as it was signing the free trade agreement with the United States?

William Hague: My hon. Friend has made his point well, but I do not think that anyone is contemplating leaving the EU before 14 June—if, indeed, ever—when key decisions will be made at the Trade Council in the EU. If that process is successful, it will allow negotiations to be launched during the President’s visit to Europe for the G8 summit a few days later. We are getting on with all these matters now.

Emma Reynolds: I apologise on behalf of the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), who regrets that he is unable to be here today. I also thank the Foreign Secretary and you, Mr. Speaker, for acknowledging notification of his absence earlier.
	An EU-US free trade agreement will be worth an average of £466 a year to every family in the country. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if his Back Benchers and some of his ministerial colleagues achieve their dream of leaving the EU, there will be little chance of our securing a similar bilateral UK-US free trade agreement?

William Hague: I am not going to speculate about that. We are going to make a success of negotiations between all the members of the EU, including the United Kingdom and the United States. That is our objective. As several Members have observed, this would be a transformational trade agreement, and I hope that there is a strong commitment to it in all parts of the House.

Mark Pritchard: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the Prime Minister on their vision in trying to achieve an EU-US free trade
	agreement, but does the Foreign Secretary share my concern about the fact that, on occasion, the European Union is very slow to act and to make such agreements? There is still room for bilateral trade agreements through strategic partnerships between countries.

William Hague: There is no doubt that working with 27 countries on these matters can be ponderous and slow, but when it is successful, it is of enormous importance. Those are the downside and the upside of circumstances in which competence lies with the European Union. When it works, it works well. The free trade agreement with South Korea eliminated nearly 97% of tariffs, and some British businesses are now enjoying a huge increase in exports to South Korea as a result. We want to see the same thing happen on an even greater scale in relation to the United States.

Richard Burden: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the EU has a trade agreement with Israel that allows goods to be imported under preference. He and 16 other EU Foreign Ministers have written to Baroness Ashton asking for guidelines to be drawn up to ensure goods produced in illegal settlements are not imported to the EU labelled “Made in Israel”. What steps are being taken to draw up those guidelines and to bring them into force?

William Hague: The UK has been advancing the case for such guidelines. That was done under the previous Government, and this Government support it. As the hon. Gentleman says, I have taken this up, along with other Foreign Ministers, with the EU High Representative. We look to the whole of the EU to do this in a co-ordinated and effective way.

David Nuttall: I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that, in view of the fact that we have been members of the Common Market for 40 years, it is certainly true to describe negotiations as “ponderous and slow.” Does he agree that this country might have made more progress towards securing a free trade agreement with the United States if we had not been members of the Common Market, or what is now the European Union?

William Hague: Like other hon. Members, my hon. Friend is asking me to speculate on areas I do not want to get drawn into speculating about. We make the most of the situation we are dealing with. The fact is that this is a competence of the EU, although our strong political will and support within the EU is required to make the most of such free trade agreements. As I mentioned earlier, working with 26 other countries can mean the process is slow, but it also means that when we succeed, that has an enormous impact. My hon. Friend should bear that trade-off in mind.

Sri Lanka

Jim Cunningham: What recent discussions he has had with the Commonwealth ministerial action group on Sri Lanka.

Alistair Burt: The UK is not a member of the CMAG, but we have regular bilateral conversations with its members. We do not expect Sri Lanka to be on the formal CMAG agenda at
	its next meeting on 26 April, but we expect, and support, it being discussed at some stage in the meeting.

Jim Cunningham: The CMAG is the custodian of the Commonwealth’s fundamental values and principles. Given the allegations of war crimes in Sri Lanka and the impeachment of the Chief Justice, will the Government be calling on CMAG members to take action on Sri Lanka at its Friday meeting?

Alistair Burt: We have been very clear in a variety of statements, and in direct contact with the Government of Sri Lanka, that they should be upholding the very best of Commonwealth values, particularly in view of their intention to hold the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo later this year. We know from comments by members of the CMAG that they share the concerns and that they will also be expecting Sri Lanka to uphold those values.

Malcolm Rifkind: Do the Government accept that it is becoming increasingly apparent that great damage will be done to the Commonwealth if the next CHOGM is held in Colombo later this year, given the appalling human rights record in Sri Lanka and its Government’s disregard for the rule of law? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government are taking action, along with many other Commonwealth states, to have this matter ventilated not just at the CMAG, but if necessary between Heads of Government, to ensure that action can be taken over the next few months to find an alternative venue?

Alistair Burt: The decision to site the next CHOGM in Colombo was taken by consensus in the Commonwealth back in 2009, and we have no indication that the Commonwealth intends to change its view on that, but my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to point out the contrast between Commonwealth values and concerns about what is happening in Sri Lanka. We and other Governments have made that clear, and the recent passing of the Human Rights Council resolution in Geneva, which the UK strongly supported, is evidence of that.

Kerry McCarthy: The Minister just referenced the most recent United Nations resolution on Sri Lanka, in which it noted
	“the continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri Lanka, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture, and violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly”.
	Given that Sri Lanka has been judged in those terms by the UN, to what extent does the Minister think the country complies with the principles of the Commonwealth and the recently adopted Commonwealth charter, and should we use CHOGM as a means of leverage to put pressure on Sri Lanka to put its house in order?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady is correct when she says that CHOGM provides the opportunity for us and others to express concerns to Sri Lanka, and to urge it to make good its own promises to fulfil the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations. We have urged it to do so and we will continue to do that.
	I was able to speak to the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister yesterday. I made reference to our further concerns, whether they are about the impeachment of the Chief Justice or further attacks on the press in Jaffna, and made it clear that if Colombo is to host CHOGM later this year, the spotlight will be on Sri Lanka and it will need to demonstrate to the world how it has responded to these concerns and made good its own beliefs in reconciliation for the future.

Simon Hughes: May I again urge on Ministers the idea that the Commonwealth should have a group of people independent of the relevant Government, who can go in and look at human rights issues, so that we can have not just a charter, but a method of reporting back to see whether the charter is upheld in Sri Lanka and other places?

Alistair Burt: The determination of the Commonwealth to uphold the highest principles, the Lancaster principles, and how that can be ensured in all Commonwealth countries, is a matter of active discussion in the Commonwealth. The situation in Sri Lanka has pointed out very sharply the discrepancy between the concerns and those values in principle. I have no doubt that leaders of the Commonwealth and Heads of State are acutely aware of the concerns that my right hon. Friend raises, and will be addressing them.

Indonesia (Death Penalty)

Andrew Jones: What recent discussions he has had with the Indonesian Government about the death penalty.

Hugo Swire: The British Government strongly oppose the death penalty, as a matter of principle. We continue to make formal representations to the Indonesian authorities and to speak out publicly on this issue, and they are in no doubt as to the seriousness with which we take this issue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our objections to the use of the death penalty with the Indonesian Foreign Minister in November 2012.

Andrew Jones: I thank the Minister for the efforts that the Foreign Office is taking on behalf of Lindsay Sandiford. Does he agree that the Indonesian Government should be left in no doubt that the failure to commute the threat of a death sentence would have serious implications for our relationship with Indonesia, and their standing in the world?

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the death penalty with the Indonesian Foreign Minister during the November state visit of the Indonesian President. I issued a statement on 15 March, firmly expressing UK concern following the recent execution carried out by Indonesia. We continue to be deeply concerned for both Lindsay Sandiford and Gareth Cashmore, who have been sentenced to death for drug-trafficking offences. We are seeking reassurances that Indonesia will not seek to carry out the death penalty in both cases.

Martin Horwood: May I also thank the Foreign Office for the support that it has given to my former constituent, Lindsay Sandiford? However, given the concerns about the adequacy of translation in the initial trial and the adequacy of legal representation going forward to the Supreme Court stage, will the Foreign Office reconsider its position and follow Indonesia’s own example, which provides support for translation costs and legal costs for its nationals facing the death penalty abroad, and support Lindsay Sandiford through that process, even though it is not legally obliged to do so?

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend is right to voice that concern, but it is true that the Government do not pay for legal representation for British nationals overseas. We have been working extremely closely with Lindsay Sandiford’s lawyers and Reprieve in identifying a lawyer for her, and we are prepared to assist her with anything beyond actually having to meet some of these bills, which we just simply do not do.

Korean Peninsula

Wayne David: What recent assessment he has made of the implications for the UK of instability in the Korean peninsula.

Graham Evans: What steps the Government are taking in response to the recent actions of North Korea.

Lindsay Roy: What recent assessment he has made of the implications for the UK of instability in the Korean peninsula.

William Hague: Our assessment remains that there is no immediate risk to British nationals living or travelling in the Korean peninsula. But North Korea’s rhetoric and behaviour poses a serious risk to the stability of the region, which includes several of the world’s largest economies. The impact of miscalculation by the North Korean regime could extend well beyond its region. That is why the international response must remain clear, calm and united.

Wayne David: Inevitably and rightly, there has been tremendous focus on the absurd rhetoric of the North Korean regime and the development of its nuclear capability, but last month the United Nations Human Rights Council decided to set up a commission of inquiry into human rights abuses in North Korea. Will the Foreign Secretary give us an indication of how that work might develop?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about this. The UN Human Rights Council agreed to establish a commission of inquiry. This was a unanimous vote, which is unusual on these issues, and it was proposed in a resolution presented by the European Union and Japan, and co-sponsored by more than 40 countries. This will investigate the most serious human rights violations identified by the UN special rapporteur, including those in political prison camps. It is quite right that we
	do everything we can to investigate what is known to the world as an appalling record of human rights abuse in North Korea.

Graham Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a further missile test by North Korea would be illegal, provocative and dangerous in the current climate? What steps has he taken to persuade the Chinese Government to use their influence to urge the North Koreans not to go down this dangerous path and to return to the negotiation table?

William Hague: As my hon. Friend rightly says, we work with China on this, and of course with the United States. I was pleased that on Secretary Kerry’s visit to China in the last 10 days, the United States and China presented a strong, united position on this. As I reported to the House last week, we were active in bringing together the G8 nations, including Russia, during our meeting with G8 Foreign Ministers in London two weeks ago, to make it clear to the North Korean Government that they have a choice to make: either continue with this provocative path and face further isolation, or engage constructively with the rest of the world.

Lindsay Roy: Clearly, immense challenges remain in the Korean peninsula, including for British citizens and their representatives. What additional support has been provided through the Foreign Secretary’s office to embassy staff in both North and South Korea during this period of heightened threats and tensions?

William Hague: The offices function very well. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question because it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to our embassy staff in Pyongyang. It is not an easy country for the staff of western embassies to work in, but their work is important, particularly as many of our allies, such as Japan, the United States and South Korea, do not have embassies in Pyongyang. Our embassy is important and the small staff there do a great job. We were informed on 5 April by the North Koreans that they could not guarantee the safety of embassies in the event of war, but we are responding in the calm way that I have advocated, and our embassy sees no need to be withdrawn from Pyongyang.

Julian Lewis: Despite the limited nature of the threat directly posed to Britain by North Korea, does the Secretary of State agree that the speed with which this crisis has arisen indicates how foolish we would be to downgrade our strategic nuclear deterrent in the future?

William Hague: Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That would be a very serious national error. We have to bear in mind that North Korea has paraded, but not tested, a long-range missile with a claimed range of 12,000 km. That is clearly the sort of thing that it is trying to develop, and we must bear that in mind when making the decision that my hon. Friend talks about.

John Spellar: Does not the behaviour of North Korea confirm that vile dictatorships are a threat not only to their own citizens, but to their neighbours? Has the Minister conveyed the full support of the UK
	to the Governments of South Korea and Japan in the face of outrageous aggression from North Korea? What steps is he taking to ensure that disputes in east Asia are resolved through international law, not military action?

William Hague: Yes, we are in very close consultation with those countries. I discussed this in detail with Foreign Minister Kishida of Japan when he was here two weeks ago, and last week I telephoned Foreign Minister Yun of South Korea. These countries are very conscious of our support and grateful for the support that we give at the UN Security Council. On other disputes in east Asia, we make it clear to all countries concerned that we wish to see them peacefully resolved and in accordance with international law.

Duncan Hames: Given the reckless, threatening behaviour in the north, what would the Foreign Secretary say to those in South Korea who would advocate a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent as a central plank of their future national security?

William Hague: Of course, the goal of international policy is to bring about the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, which is something the South Korean Government support, but I believe that it is very important for a country, such as ours, which has a nuclear deterrent that adds enormously to the credibility of the western alliance, to keep it.

Colombia (Human Rights)

Helen Jones: What recent discussions he has had on human rights in Colombia.

Hugo Swire: We recognise the progress made by the Colombian Government to address human rights problems but continue to raise issues of concern when they arise. On 4 March I met Colombia’s Vice-Minister for Defence, Jorge Enrique Bedoya, in London. We discussed various issues, including human rights and military justice reform.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he recognise that there can be no real peace in Colombia until the rights of the democratic opposition and mass social movements, such as the Patriotic March, whose leaders will visit Parliament tomorrow, are recognised? Its members are regularly brutally murdered by both the Colombian Government and right-wing paramilitary groups. Will he assure me that the UK Government will do everything possible to stress to the Colombian Government that democratic opposition is part of a civilized society?

Hugo Swire: Yes, we absolutely will. We recognise the efforts made by President Santos to date. In fact, our 2012 annual human rights report, which was launched on 15 April, gives our assessment of the key areas where the Colombian Government have made progress and the areas where human rights concerns remain. We believe that the President is making the right moves and that he needs greater encouragement. I welcome the interest shown by Members across the House in holding the Colombians to their word.

Kerry McCarthy: I am sure the Minister shares my hope that the latest round of peace talks with the FARC will succeed. Can he update the House on his assessment of what progress has been made in those talks and tell us what representations, if any, the UK has made to President Santos regarding his five-point plan, particularly the fifth point, which is on victims’ rights?

Hugo Swire: As I said, we are hugely supportive of what President Santos has done to date and very much welcome the talks that have been going on in Havana, which we understand are due to restart in May. We stand by to offer any help we can. I think that it is worth paying tribute to his Government for getting to where they are. It has been a long time since Colombia has been as peaceful as it is today, but there is still a long way to go.

South Africa (Sexual Violence)

Clive Efford: What progress he is making on tackling sexual violence in South Africa.

William Hague: Levels of gender-based violence in South Africa are among the highest in the world. The UK Government have committed £4 million to working with the South African Government, UN agencies and civil society to tackle the root causes.

Clive Efford: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Constituents of mine have raised concerns about the levels of sexual violence in South African schools. Has his Department had any contact with the Congress of South African Students to discuss that distressing situation?

William Hague: We have contact with many organisations in South Africa, including Rape Crisis and the Women’s Legal Centre, which works to improve access to justice for poorer people. Our high commissioner has given a series of radio interviews about the issue. We would be happy to add to that work and to those contacts, so I will look specifically at the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Anne McIntosh: As chair of the all-party South Africa group, may I tell my right hon. Friend how pleased we are about the money that the Foreign Office has made available? Will he use his good offices, those of our high commissioner and our role in the Commonwealth to show how unacceptable such behaviour is in South Africa, and indeed in other parts of the Commonwealth?

William Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and absolutely agree with her. I mentioned how active the British high commissioner has been in highlighting the issue, including during South Africa’s 16 days of activism on gender-based violence in November last year. She also raised awareness of the issue at an international women’s day reception just last month, in March. We will continue that work, with the encouragement of this House.

South Sudan

Mark Durkan: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in South Sudan.

Mark Simmonds: Much of South Sudan has enjoyed improved security over the past year, but we are concerned about violence in Jonglei, including the recent attack on a UN convoy in which 12 peacekeepers and civilians died. We are supporting community reconciliation efforts and urging the Government to prioritise the protection of civilians.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Minister for that answer. Have the Government been able to form any reliable assessment of recent events in Eastern Equatoria, particularly the alleged killings by the army in Lorema hospital? Obviously those alleged events follow the recent killing of members of the governor’s bodyguard, but there are divergent accounts and allegations. Have the Government been able to give credence to any side’s version of events?

Mark Simmonds: We are still trying to assess the detail of exactly what happened and to untangle the different stories emanating from that part of southern Sudan. There needs to be recognition that significant progress has been made and that a key part of finding a lasting solution to the tension between South Sudan and North Sudan is the implementation of the agreement that was announced at the United Nations General Assembly last year.

Tony Baldry: Now that South Sudan and Sudan have resolved their difficulties over oil, South Sudan has the potential to become an extremely prosperous country, but it still has very weak governance. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to help the Government of South Sudan enhance their machinery of governance and their capacity properly to govern South Sudan?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point: the oil now flowing between and through South Sudan and Sudan creates the opportunity for economic stability, development and growth in the southern part of Sudan, so the Government of South Sudan will have to have additional capacity to deal with the income that will, I hope, flow into the South Sudanese exchequer. Support is provided by the Foreign Office and by the work of our colleagues at the Department for International Development. We are assisting the South Sudanese Government in building that relevant capacity.

Colombia

Thomas Docherty: What assessment he has made of the progress made by the Government of Colombia in tackling impunity and implementing the victims and land restitution law.

Hugo Swire: As noted in our 2012 human rights report, the Colombian Government have made
	some progress on both issues: 170,000 victims have been provided with reparations under the victims and land restitution law. We continue to press the Colombian Government to speed up the processing of cases and reduce impunity, and support them in their steps to reform the judicial system.

Thomas Docherty: I am sure the House will agree that, despite the law’s success, many human rights activists are still in grave danger from death threats, and the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and others have campaigned to highlight the issue. Has the Minister met CAFOD and, if not, will he do so?

Hugo Swire: The UK’s statement on the UN’s 2013 universal periodic review on Colombia, which we are launching today in Geneva, will call for improved access to justice for victims. I have not to date met representatives from CAFOD, but I would be delighted to do so, particularly if they were accompanied by the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that lessons learned by the UK during the Northern Ireland peace process could be useful in helping us to deliver peace in Colombia?

Hugo Swire: Having had the honour of serving as Minister of State for Northern Ireland for two and a half years and of now travelling the world, I know that many countries benefit from what was learned in Northern Ireland. I welcome the interest shown in Colombia by Members from Northern Ireland, because what they know can be of huge use to Colombia as it tries to inch towards peace.

Jim Shannon: The Minister will be aware that, while the land restitution law is good, when peasant farmers return to their land they are coerced, bullied, injured and murdered. Have the Government held any discussions with the Colombian Government to ensure that peasant farmers are given protection when they return to their land?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman is right. We are concerned about the right of indigenous people. We are providing technical assistance to the Colombian Government to work towards effective implementation of the new land and victims law, which aims to do exactly that—to return land to huge numbers of displaced people and to compensate victims.

Frank Roy: Sexual violence has reached a dangerous level in Colombia. The numbers are ever increasing, yet very few are brought to trial. What can the Government do to highlight this absurdity?

Hugo Swire: Indeed; in 2012, President Santos launched Colombia’s national public policy for gender equality, and the British Government will provide support to the Colombian Government to promote women’s rights and address discrimination wherever possible. Equally, the British embassy in Colombia is assisting the Colombian Government in looking at these extremely serious issues.

CHOGM (Colombo)

Ann Clwyd: What discussions he has had with his Commonwealth counterparts about the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo in 2013 and the progress being made on tackling human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.

Alistair Burt: We have discussions with our counterparts in the Commonwealth on a variety of subjects on a regular basis, including on CHOGM. We make every effort to reiterate our concerns about human rights directly to Sri Lanka, whenever we get the opportunity. I was able to do that most recently in a meeting with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister just yesterday.

Ann Clwyd: It is obviously not enough, because the Sri Lankans are not listening. They do not listen to the UN or the Commonwealth. It beggars belief that we think that they will listen more if CHOGM goes ahead there and we attend. I ask the UK Government to think carefully about the signal that it will send about their commitment to human rights if they go ahead with that visit.

Alistair Burt: I understand the concerns of the right hon. Lady, as do all hon. Members. This is a decision for the Commonwealth. It decided by consensus that the Heads of Government meeting should be in Colombo. The Commonwealth recognises the issues of concern in Sri Lanka. There is no doubt that whoever ends up going to CHOGM, from whatever country, Sri Lanka will be in the spotlight. The progress that can be made on a number of the positive recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission is a key topic that many will want to address. We want Sri Lanka to get to where it professes it wants to go. However, I agree with the right hon. Lady entirely that the evidence of that at present is pretty scant.

Gareth Thomas: On human rights abuses, the British and US assessments of the level of torture in Sri Lanka seem to be at variance. The FCO says merely that reports of torture continue, while the US State Department says that there is
	“widespread impunity for a broad range of human rights abuses, particularly involving police torture”.
	Why the difference of views?

Alistair Burt: We judge the evidence of torture that is brought to us and make our calculations upon it. We have expressed concern about incidents of torture. Our asylum processes take account of the possibility that some people, but not all, could be subject to torture. Cases are dealt with on an individual basis. Part of the overall picture of human rights concerns in Sri Lanka is that the Government appear to be determined to address the issue, but the evidence remains difficult to see in certain cases. We will continue to press the case and we know that this is a matter of great interest to all right hon. and hon. Members.

Mali

Hugh Bayley: What progress has been made on rebuilding democratic and accountable institutions in Mali; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Simmonds: The UK’s primary goal in Mali is to encourage the transitional authorities to pursue an inclusive political process that supports long-term stability. We welcome the commitment to a road map and the creation of a national commission for dialogue and reconciliation, but rapid progress is required if that is to stay on track.

Hugh Bayley: The French Parliament has just voted to extend France’s military mission to Mali at least until the end of the year. A French colonel is reported in Le Monde as saying that the Malian military remains ill-equipped and ill-trained. How long does the Minister think the UK will contribute by deploying troops to the EU training mission?

Mark Simmonds: Let us be absolutely clear that the UK is offering the French deployment, at the behest of the civilian-led sovereign Government of Mali, limited logistical support. Approximately 40 UK military personnel are deployed as part of the EU training mission, three of whom are specifically related to the Foreign Secretary’s initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. They are there to train the Malian army with respect to human rights. Other international and multilateral discussions are taking place on deploying AFISMA—the African-led international support mission to Mali—to replace the French troops and, ultimately, a UN mission.

Ian Lucas: Indeed, Jeffrey Feltman, the United Nations Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs, said last week that it was vital that the political process be taken forward in Mali. Given our previous military involvement, what specific assistance are the UK Government giving to the political process? Does the Minister envisage the elections taking place by the summer of this year?

Mark Simmonds: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Bamako recently to support that process. The Prime Minister has appointed a special representative, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien), who is very involved in the process. The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the importance of the political process. We are discussing whether we can support the efforts of the African Union as well. We need to ensure that all the groups in the north are involved in the political process, and that mechanisms are put in place to air and resolve the grievances of those who live in the north.

Middle East Peace Process

Andrew Gwynne: What recent assessment he has made of the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: Progress towards achieving a lasting two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians remains a top foreign policy priority. I welcome the efforts
	that Secretary Kerry has put into the middle east peace process since taking office. The UK will make every effort to mobilise the European Union and Arab states behind decisive US-led moves for peace.

Andrew Gwynne: With the US Secretary of State rightly attempting to encourage both the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships back to the negotiating table, does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern at the resignation of the Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad? Has he conveyed to the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, the need for Mr Fayyad’s economic reforms to continue?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that we are concerned about the resignation of Salam Fayyad, who has done a great job of building institutions for Palestinians. He is remaining in office for an interim period of several weeks as consideration is given to a successor. We are certainly always in touch with the Palestinian leadership, and they know that we strongly believe that the economic programme that Salam Fayyad has pursued must be continued.

Karl McCartney: My right hon. Friend may be aware that Prime Minister Netanyahu has emphasised his new Government’s commitment to an independent Palestinian state through direct negotiations. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of reports of Palestinian Authority-sanctioned incitement, which remains an obstacle to a genuine peace settlement?

William Hague: President Obama’s commitment is very important, and his visit to the region last month was successful. He argued in Jerusalem that peace is necessary, just and possible, and we should strongly welcome the involvement of the United States. There will be many obstacles in the path on both sides, and many forms of behaviour and many things that are said will make the process more difficult. We have to overcome those and work with the leaderships of the Israelis and the Palestinians on the basis that they are willing to come to a negotiated peace.

Louise Ellman: In recent days, rockets have fallen on the Israeli town of Eilat and the Egyptian authorities have intercepted a ship containing arms destined for Gaza and Sinai. In view of that, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the implementation of United Nations resolution 1860, which deals with international arms smuggling, must be an integral part of any peace settlement?

William Hague: Yes, the hon. Lady is right. On 17 April at least two rockets hit Eilat, in southern Israel, reportedly fired from Sinai, and militants have fired a number of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel since 26 February. All of that makes pursuing a peace process and securing a two-state solution more difficult. It is very important that every country fulfils its international responsibilities under UN resolutions to intercept arms shipments.

Bob Russell: Can the Foreign Secretary say why Palestinians should trust Britain when there is not a level playing field—literally—because the Government are supporting a European international football tournament taking place in Israel?

William Hague: The fact is that both sides have a level of trust first in the United States, and then in many other countries in the world, including the UK, to take forward the process. I will visit the region in the coming weeks to reinforce that and to try to accelerate everything that we are talking about. In general in world affairs, I do not believe that sporting fixtures should be an obstacle to political progress of any form, and I do not think they will be in this case.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Foreign Secretary not realise that any progress between Israel and Palestine is very unlikely to move on at all while the settlement building, the annexation of East Jerusalem and the siege of Gaza continue? Until Israel radically modifies its behaviour towards the Palestinian people, how can there be any progress?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of our condemnation of settlement activity on occupied land, and I am happy to reiterate that today. It is one reason why carrying the process forward is such an urgent matter. Settlement activity means that within a foreseeable time, a two-state solution will no longer be practical. Secretary Kerry has put that case, and the United States Administration accept it. We have to try to make a success of the process, including by coming to a conclusion on all final status issues.

Philip Hollobone: Does the Foreign Secretary think it would be helpful or unhelpful for there to be elections in the west bank and Gaza strip this year?

William Hague: As believers in democracy we are always in favour of people having their voices heard, and we would be reluctant ever to regard elections as unhelpful. We hope, of course, that in any elections, people who are ready to make peace will be successful so that this long-running conflict can be resolved.

Ghana

Helen Goodman: What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Ghana; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Simmonds: We welcome Ghana’s successful conduct of elections in December 2012, which were internationally recognised as generally free, fair and credible. The Foreign Secretary visited Ghana in March, strengthening further the already excellent Ghana-UK relationship, and I had the pleasure of attending the presidential inauguration in Accra in January.

Helen Goodman: I am a little bit surprised by the Minister’s answer to be honest. Last week some women from the Ghanaian Parliament came to Westminster, and they emphasised the value of stable institutions. As the Minister knows, a dispute about the presidential election is, fortunately, being pursued in the courts rather than on the street. Will he say a little more about discussions that the Foreign Secretary has had about that episode?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the petition before the Supreme Court in Ghana. However, Ghana has now had six successful elections since military rule ceased in 1992, and is rightly seen as a beacon of democracy in western Africa. She is also right to say that it is essential that such disputes are delivered through the courts, rather than on the streets. In the legal process, the Supreme Court started looking at the petition on 16 April, and we anticipate a judgment within the next month or two.

Somalia

Jessica Morden: What discussions he has had on ensuring the representation of women at the upcoming conference on Somalia and ensuring that there is discussion of women’s rights and gender-responsive peace-building at that conference.

Mark Simmonds: We have encouraged the Somali Government to bring a representative delegation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I will hold an event early next week to hear from prominent Somali women about empowerment, violence against women and forced marriage. Preventing sexual violence in conflict is also a theme of the Somali conference.

Jessica Morden: Members of the Somali community in my constituency feel it is hugely important that work is done to reach out to, identify and encourage key women to participate in the conference. Will the Minister reassure them that that will be the case?

Mark Simmonds: In short, I can, not only at the conference but also prior to it. I and officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are reaching out to and meeting not just male, but female representatives of the diaspora throughout the United Kingdom. As I mentioned, a meeting will be focused on Somali women and the preventing sexual violence initiative is a key part of the Somali conference. I reassure the hon. Lady that the key is an end to conflict and insecurity in Somalia, and we sought to insert language into UN Security Council resolution 2093 about the importance of the role of women in all efforts for peace and security going forward.

Sexual Violence in Conflict

Amber Rudd: What steps his Department is taking to implement the G8 declaration on preventing sexual violence in conflict; and if he will make a statement.

William Hague: Following the adoption of the historic G8 declaration, we will take the campaign to the UN and begin implementation immediately. G8 peacekeeping experts meet next week to discuss commitments on military training, and work begins next month in The Hague, London and Geneva on the development of the protocol.

Amber Rudd: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the outcome of the G8 summit, and I particularly welcome the declaration on the prevention of sexual violence in conflict. Will he tell the House what action he will take to move the initiative beyond the G8?

William Hague: Now that we have the strong support of the G8 nations in what amounted to an historic declaration, I want to take the campaign to the United Nations and convene during our presidency of the Security Council in June a special session of the Security Council, which I will chair, in order to rally wider global support. I will then take the campaign to the United Nations General Assembly in September. I believe that in this calendar year we can make an enormous difference to global attitudes, action on the ground, and global agreement on combating sexual violence in conflict.

David Burrowes: The Foreign Secretary will be aware of ongoing concerns, which have been expressed not least in the Human Rights Watch report published yesterday, on Burma, sexual violence, and what Human Rights Watch says amounts to ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya people. Given the lifting of sanctions, what representations has he made on the profoundly concerning human rights breaches against the people of Burma?

William Hague: It is important for us to keep up the work and the pressure on those subjects, which I discussed last week with one of the President of Burma’s most senior Ministers and advisers—a Minister of the President’s Office. In particular, we discussed addressing the stateless position of the Rohingya people. The UK and other EU countries have a role to play in offering police training in dealing with ethnic violence. Keeping up the pressure on human rights issues will be part of the EU’s continuing approach.

Topical Questions

Robert Buckland: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

William Hague: On Saturday, I met Friends of Syria ministers in Istanbul, where the Syrian National Coalition issued its clearest statement yet of its support for a political solution to the conflict, its commitment to a future for all Syrians, its rejection of all forms of terrorism and extremism, and its responsible approach on chemical and biological weapons. In return, the nations present undertook to strengthen their support for the Syrian opposition.

Robert Buckland: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Britain’s relationship with Germany is one of the most important aspects of our influence within the EU. Will he outline how he and his Government have engaged with Germany, and how they will do so in future?

William Hague: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Compared with the last year of the previous Government, we have nearly quadrupled the number of ministerial and senior official bilateral visits to Germany each year. We have established joint meetings twice a year of the
	British-German ministerial committees on the EU. I have made many visits to Germany, and as my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister works extremely closely with Chancellor Merkel. I believe it is right to say that we now work more closely with Germany than any previous Government.

John Spellar: As we move towards the final military draw-down in Afghanistan, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure personnel protection for our remaining training forces, and for our brave men and women from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and non-governmental organisations, who are working for a better future for the Afghan people?

William Hague: Protecting people during the draw-down is extremely important. That is one reason for maintaining a substantial military force. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, our military numbers are coming down from 9,000 to 5,000 this year. We will then decide on the profile of withdrawal from then on. A large part of their job is the protection of the personnel who remain. We also work closely with the Afghan authorities and the very substantial Afghan national security forces to ensure that our hard-working personnel, to whom I pay tribute, are properly protected.

Kris Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation in Kashmir remains a key to lasting peace and security in Asia? What efforts are the Government making to help Pakistan and India to resolve their differences and unlock the great human and economic potential of the region?

Alistair Burt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Efforts to resolve the issue in Kashmir continue and will be of huge benefit to both countries and the region as a whole. The UK is in contact with both Governments to urge them to do as much as possible to assist that reconciliation. We were particularly engaged after the incidents in January, when, once again, there were killings and shootings. It is important to note that those incidents did not disturb the dialogue that had grown up between India and Pakistan, which is important for the resolution of the issue.

Lisa Nandy: Following the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), is he aware that Ahava Cosmetics, which produces cosmetics in an illegal settlement, is currently labelled as “Israeli” in the UK? Despite complaints to trading standards, it refused to take up the matter. I welcomed his approach to EU-wide guidelines, but will he talk to his colleagues to ensure that the guidelines we already have are upheld and enforced?

Alistair Burt: It is of course essential that guidelines that have been introduced are adhered to, and that products are correctly and properly labelled. I am aware of the concerns about the product that has been mentioned—it is discussed. It is important that the
	voluntary guidelines are extended, and that settlement produce and Israeli produce are correctly labelled to give people a choice.

Graham Evans: A Palestinian news agency has reported that Hamas will seek to petition the EU to remove it from the terrorist list. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of those reports, and will he confirm that the British Government will remain steadfast in its position that Hamas is indeed a terrorist organisation?

William Hague: Our position on Hamas is well known. We look to it, as we look to everyone in that region, to uphold previous agreements, forswear violence and make credible movement towards all of the Quartet principles that have been long established. There has been no change in our position on Hamas, and we do not, therefore, have direct contact with it.

Kevin Barron: Will the Minister update us on the ratification of the UN arms trade treaty and what work we are doing with our international partners to implement it as soon as possible?

Alistair Burt: I am so glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised this point. It has been rather unnoticed in the past few weeks that the ATT was passed. It is one of the most important things the UN has achieved in recent years. Ratification will begin on 3 June, and we will be playing a leading part in encouraging states to sign up and ratify as soon as possible. I appreciate the support of the whole House. This has been a joint effort; it began in 2007 under the previous Government and we have seen it through to its successful conclusion. I would like publicly to congratulate Ambassador Jo Adamson, who has led the team in the United Nations and done a wonderful job.

Priti Patel: Last year, Conservatives on Essex county council passed a motion calling for the EU budget to be cut, a reduction in our contributions to the EU and for EU red tape to be slashed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the good people of Essex should back Essex Conservatives on 2 May—the only party to stand up to Europe?

Mr Speaker: With reference to the responsibilities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

William Hague: I absolutely agree, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful for the robust support of Conservatives on Essex county council on aspects of foreign policy. I am sure that they do a good job outside of foreign policy, too. Their support for a reduction in the EU budget is very important. It is something that people across the country want to see, and the Prime Minister has achieved the first ever reduction in the multiannual financial framework—a major diplomatic achievement for this country.

Valerie Vaz: Human rights organisations were alarmed when sanctions against Burma were lifted. Could the Foreign Secretary use this as a
	lever to ensure that the United Nations can establish its human rights office in Burma, and to ensure that Burma releases all political prisoners, including Aung Naing?

Hugo Swire: It is worth pointing out to the hon. Lady that, yes, we agree with what she says, but human rights will be at the heart of the lifting of sanctions in Burma. We did it with the advice of Aung San Suu Kyi, because we believe that engagement with the Burmese Government is the way forward. We are deeply concerned about human rights and we remain deeply concerned about ethnic conflict, but we believe that now is the appropriate time to lift sanctions.

Andrew Selous: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the tragic bombing in Boston is a sad reminder of the ongoing threat of global terrorism, and stresses the importance of the United Kingdom having very close links with the intelligence services of our allies, particularly the United States?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. The tragic events in Boston are a reminder of that, as is this morning’s news about the operation in Canada to prevent a terrorist attack. We must always be vigilant about these matters and work closely with other countries. I explained, in my speech to the Royal United Services Institute in February, how we are extending our co-operation on counter-terrorism with many more countries in the world, given the more diffuse nature of the terrorist threat.

Nicholas Dakin: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about Syria at the start of Topical Questions. Will he update us on what representations he has made with the international community to put pressure on Russia in relation to Syria?

William Hague: Putting pressure on Russia is a constant effort. We discussed it at the G8 Foreign Ministers’ meeting, and I discussed it with Sergei Lavrov when he was in London last month. The Prime Minister speaks regularly, and will shortly speak further, with President Putin. Our diplomatic efforts with Russia are continual, but we have to say clearly that those efforts have not been successful so far and that therefore it is necessary to give greater support, in various ways, to the Syrian National Coalition on the ground in Syria in order to try and save lives and increase the incentive for the Assad regime to come to a political settlement.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend will be aware that this year marks the 25th anniversary of Saddam’s mustard gas attack on Halabja. Will he support the principle of a UN inquiry into those many hundreds of western companies that supplied the chemical weapons that enabled Saddam to carry out his attacks?

Alistair Burt: I am aware that my hon. Friend was in Iraq recently for the commemoration on the 25th anniversary of this dreadful massacre, and he also spoke with great passion in a recent debate in the House. Following the incident, there were extensive UN and UK investigations into the use of chemical weapons and any involvement
	of UK companies. Those inquiries were fairly comprehensive and did not illustrate any UK involvement. From a UK point of view, I am not sure that any further inquiries are necessary.

Elfyn Llwyd: Recently, the Prime Minister made the very eccentric contention that North Korean missiles could reach the shores of the UK, apparently in an attempt to bolster support for Trident’s renewal. Is it not time to scrap the Trident renewal, save £100 billion, spend it on public services and avoid hitting the vulnerable in society?

William Hague: To be clear, the Prime Minister said that North Korea claimed that it had missiles that could hit the whole of the United States, and if that was the case, of course, it could also hit the UK. I mentioned earlier that it has paraded, but not yet tested, a 12,000 km-range missile. Looking decades ahead, as we do with these decisions, we have to be aware of the great variety of potential threats to the UK. It is vital, therefore, that we retain the ultimate deterrent in this country, the total cost of which is about 1.5% of the total welfare budget.

Menzies Campbell: I hope my right hon. Friend will excuse me if I return to the question of Syria and the possible supply of arms to the opposition. Does he understand that it appears to many of us that the language being used by the Government is equivocal and delphic? In these circumstances, can we have an assurance that any material change in policy will be subject to the express endorsement of the House?

William Hague: My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I come regularly to the House with updates on Syria—I think I have given seven or eight oral statements—and that on any major decision the House can express its view. I am sure that the business managers would want to facilitate that—let me put it that way. The next few weeks will be crucial, because we need to decide, with our European Union partners and the United States, the next steps that we can realistically take, and should take, in order to do what I was just talking about—to strengthen the opposition on the ground and increase the incentives for a political settlement in Syria. We have taken no decision about that, but if we do so, I will come to the House and describe that decision.

Ian Austin: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to set out the UK’s opposition to boycotts, disinvestment campaigns and other attempts to de-legitimise the state of Israel, because the only way we will see peace in the middle east, with a secure Israel living peacefully alongside a viable Palestinian state, is by initiatives that bring people on both sides who believe in peace to work together, not by boycotts and all the rest of it, which just drive people further apart?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman puts it very well, and I know he cares passionately about this subject. The United Kingdom has always opposed boycotts and
	disinvestment. We believe absolutely that the future for peace in the middle east will come through negotiations between the two different sides. President Obama’s recent speech, in which he spoke about the urgency and possibility of peace, but also about the need for justice, provides a good base for both sides to proceed. We believe and hope that those opportunities should be taken as quickly as possible.

Stephen Barclay: Sanctions against Zimbabwe were recently eased and the UK gave £90 million in aid last year, but many British pensioners are being robbed of their pensions, following Mugabe’s decision in 2002 to stop paying pensions to British citizens. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the case of my constituent Mr Scott, who worked for the Zimbabwean police for over 20 years and is being denied his pension, to end this injustice?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this important issue on behalf of his constituent, but he will also be aware that many others have been affected by the withdrawal of pension payments. Hopefully his concerns will be assuaged by the fact that I have met representatives of civil servants who used to work in Zimbabwe who are not getting their pensions. I have also discussed the issue with the Zimbabwean Finance Minister, as part of the challenge to try to find a satisfactory resolution, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent to discuss the matter further.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, the Reverend William McCrea.

William McCrea: Did the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister have any discussions with the Prime Minister of Israel on his recent visit to London, or can he say when he last discussed the middle east peace process with the Prime Minister of Israel?

William Hague: Yes, I had discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu in the margins of Baroness Thatcher’s funeral and the Prime Minister had a formal bilateral meeting with him that evening. As always, we are in close contact with the Israeli Prime Minister and, as always, we have urged him to make a success of the opportunity now to take forward the middle east peace process and find a lasting and just peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but I have a sense that even if we doubled the time allocation for Foreign Office questions—of which there is no immediate prospect—demand would probably still exceed supply.

Points of Order

Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, Mr Nick Bitel was confirmed as the new chair of Sport England, but Mr Bitel was not the original recommendation for the position. He is an excellent appointment and we wish him well in his post, but it has emerged that the recommendation of Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson for the position was overturned following the intervention of No. 10. It would appear that she has been discriminated against because she had the courage to stand out against the Government’s hated welfare reforms. We need a statement on this shambolic and shabby affair. Did the Sports Minister recommend Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson for the position; what was the role of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in changing that recommendation; and did the intervention of No. 10 result in her not being appointed to this position?

Mr Speaker: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that, important issue though he raises, it is not one for the Chair. His attempted point of order will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and, knowing his terrier-like qualities as I do, I feel sure that this is a subject to which he will return.

Robert Halfon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There have been reports that plugs will be installed in the Chamber to help with charging pocket computers and iPads. Could you use your good offices to try to improve the wi-fi in the Chamber, which barely works on most occasions, before we spend a lot of taxpayers’ money putting plugs in the Chamber?

Mr Speaker: Well, I know that the Clerk feels that wi-fi in the Chamber works extremely well, and he advises me that he has been using it this day. More widely, I think the safest thing I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that these matters are being looked into and I feel sure that he will wish to participate in any investigation or examination that takes place.

Gerry Sutcliffe: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In fact, I wish to make the same point that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) made a few moments ago. There is a great deal of concern about the lack of transparency on that issue, and we look forward to finding a way of getting to the bottom of what happened.

Mr Speaker: I note the attempted point of order from the hon. Gentleman, who is a former Minister for Sport. I can only reiterate what I said to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), which is that I am sure that Members will take such opportunities as the Order Paper provides to raise these concerns, which will have been heard by, among others, the Government Chief Whip.

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Amendment)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Sarah Teather: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to require the Secretary of State to review levels of asylum support annually; to require him to lay before Parliament a draft up-rating order to increase levels of asylum support in line with changes made to mainstream benefits in years when the general level of prices has increased during the previous 12 month period; to replace support provided by the voucher system under subsections (10) and (11) of section 4 of the Act with a single, cash-based support system; and for connected purposes.
	As a country, we have a long and proud history of providing support and sanctuary to those who arrive on our shores fleeing persecution and war. I believe, however, that we are now in danger of falling short of the standards that our reputation leads people to expect. Last year, I chaired a cross-party inquiry into the experiences of children and young people in the asylum system. The panel received evidence in writing and in person from about 200 individuals and organisations: from local authorities, from academics, from those working on the front line with asylum seekers, and from the young people and their families themselves. What we heard about the hardship that they endure really shocked the panel.
	There is a popular myth that asylum seekers enjoy undeserved riches, gaining access to high-class housing and easy finance that their indigenous neighbours could only dream about. It is just that, however: a myth. In fact, families told us stories of unimaginable difficulty, loneliness and poverty, of going without meals to pay for their children’s clothes, of poor housing and of victimisation. Contrary to the popular cliché, benefits for those in the asylum system have caused people to fall way below the poverty line in recent years, with some surviving on as little as £5 a day.
	The problem with the current system is that decisions about whether to uprate the levels of benefit known as section 95 and section 4 support are effectively a matter for the Home Secretary alone. Representations from other Government Departments about the impact on children’s welfare can be, and often are, ignored. There is no requirement for the Home Secretary to come to the House regularly to report on or explain her decisions. As a consequence, no decision was made in the last financial year on whether to uprate section 4 and section 95 levels, leaving them effectively frozen since April 2011. The House rightly expects to have a say on setting the support levels for mainstream benefits, and the same should apply in these cases.
	This is a problem not just for the present Government. Successive Governments have let the levels drift, fearful of headlines relating to what is actually a tiny number of people and, in the context of budgetary pressures, a tiny amount of money. Levels for section 95 support were originally pegged by the Labour Government at 90% of income support levels, before being reduced to 70% after deductions for utility bills paid for in provided accommodation.
	Some, but not all, benefits for children continue to be pegged at a favourable level in relation to income support levels. Levels for 16 and 17-year-olds, for example, are arbitrarily reduced. No account is taken of the disability of any children who might arrive with complex needs. In any case, the downward drift in the value of adult benefits means that families as a whole are often trying to manage on benefit levels of as little as 60% or 65% of income support levels, in spite of all the data showing that 70% is the bare minimum to avoid absolute poverty, and in spite of the fact that many families arrive on our shores with little more than the clothes on their backs.
	If life is tough on section 95 support, life on section 4 support entails devastating hardship. Section 4 support is provided to those whose asylum claims do not meet the strict requirements for refugee status but who might not be able to go home, when the Government recognise that that is the case. The levels are significantly lower than the section 95 levels. This is well illustrated by the way in which we support families who have a new baby. Someone on income support would be eligible for a £500 maternity grant. Someone on section 95 support would be eligible to receive £300, but someone on section 4 support would receive just £250. Everyone knows, however, that the costs of having a baby are the same, regardless of which level of asylum support someone is eligible for.
	Furthermore, section 4 support is paid not in cash but on a card, and it is that card that causes much of the hardship. The rules on where the card can be used are highly restrictive, meaning families may have to travel some distance to be able to shop. It cannot be spent on public transport, which exacerbates the difficulties, particularly for those who need appointments with doctors or solicitors. Our inquiry heard of one case where a woman whose maternity grant, which I mentioned a minute ago, did not arrive. Without any money to travel, she was forced to leave hospital and walk home in the snow with her newborn baby in her arms. I think everyone here would accept that that is simply an unacceptable state of affairs.
	Furthermore, very little money can be transferred on this card from one week to the next, so families told us they were unable to save for larger items such as winter
	coats for their children, while the regular moves entailed for many families seeking asylum exacerbate the difficulty of having to pay for uniforms—a larger-priced item for which families need to save up from one week to the next. The families say, too, that this card is downright unreliable. It is often turned down at checkouts and, most painfully of all, the card immediately identifies the holder of it as an asylum seeker, frequently resulting in abuse and stigmatisation. During our inquiry, we heard about some very upsetting examples of that.
	This is patently not a system designed for children’s welfare, yet we met families whose children had spent two or three years on this system of support—a large proportion of their lives, then, spent in crippling levels of poverty. It seems baffling to me that such a large and inefficient bureaucracy could possibly be value for money for the 800 or so families for whom the card is currently being used. It would surely be more cost-effective to abolish it and provide one single cash-based system of support.
	This Bill is not about treating asylum seekers better than everybody else. It is about applying the same standards of decency to those whose lives have already involved unimaginable hardship. It does not entail spending lots more money; it does, however, entail spending money more wisely. It is not about special rules for one group of people. It is about making Ministers accountable to this House—as, frankly, they would expect to be in any other similar situation. Decency, common sense, accountability, and above all, humanity: that is what the Bill is about, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Sarah Teather, Dr Julian Huppert, Nic Dakin, Alex Cunningham, Mr Virendra Sharma, Neil Carmichael, Mr David Ward, Caroline Lucas, Paul Blomfield and Mark Durkan present the Bill.
	Sarah Teather accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 May, and to be printed (Bill 161).

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Mr Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I have to tell the House that the original message from the Lords was defective, so Commons Bill paper 162 did not include the amendments in lieu proposed by the Lords. This has now been rectified and a revised Bill paper 162 is in the Vote Office. The first motion therefore relates to the Lords amendments in lieu 7B and 7C, as on the revised Bill paper.
	After Clause 4

Development orders: development within the curtilage of a dwelling house

Michael Fallon: I beg to move,
	That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 7B and 7C in lieu of Lords amendment 7, to which this House has disagreed.

Mr Speaker: With this we will consider,
	That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendment 25 but proposes amendments (a) to (e) to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement.

Michael Fallon: I thank their noble Lordships and Members of the House of Commons for their thorough and thoughtful consideration of the Bill. There are two main issues before us.
	Let me begin by introducing the revised approach to the Government’s proposed relaxation of permitted development rights for home owners. During our consideration of Lords amendments in this House last week, the Secretary of State gave a commitment to reflect on the representations made and to adopt a revised approach. We have reflected carefully on the points raised by Members here and by noble Lords in the other place in their detailed deliberations on the issue, and in particular on the concern that adjoining neighbours would not have an opportunity to make representations on such developments.
	In expanding the permitted development rights for domestic extension, the Government propose to adjust the balance between home owners and local authorities, to make it easier and cheaper for families to make room for growing teenagers, or indeed for elderly parents who wish to come and live with them. Those changes reflect the Secretary of State’s recognition that a requirement to make a planning application is out of proportion to the wider impact of development. That is an important principle.
	However, we have always said that it is important to balance the benefits against the potential impact that extensions can have on neighbours. Having listened to the concerns expressed, we tabled an amendment which was agreed by their Lordships yesterday without a Division, to ensure that adjoining neighbours will be consulted when the new rights are exercised. We drew inspiration for the amendment from the 2007 “Quality of Life” report by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith).

Andrew Percy: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will he confirm that the neighbours who will be consulted will be all those who share a boundary with an affected property, and not just those who, for instance, share a party wall?

Michael Fallon: Yes, I can confirm that.
	What we are proposing is a light-touch neighbour consultation scheme. It will work like this. A home owner wishing to build an extension will write to the local planning authority providing plans and a written description of the proposal. The local authority will then notify the adjoining neighbours—for example, the owners or occupiers of properties that share a boundary, including those at the rear. Those neighbours will have 21 days in which to make an objection, the same period as under existing planning rules. If no neighbours object, the home owner will be able to proceed. If any neighbour raises an objection, the local authority will then consider whether the impact of the proposed extension on the amenity of neighbours is acceptable.

Mike Freer: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has been saying. Can he clarify the impact of the curtilage rule? Many terraced houses in London have a 10-metre rear garden and a 3-metre front garden, amounting to a 13-metre curtilage. A 50% extension at the rear would be a 65% extension in relation to the rear garden. Would that be reasonable grounds for objection by a neighbour?

Michael Fallon: That might well turn out to be a reason for one of the adjoining neighbours not to be happy with the proposal and to object to it.
	If a neighbour raises an objection, the local authority will consider the impact. It will then be up to individual councils to decide how to handle the procedure, and to determine whether decisions should be delegated to officers or made by the planning committee.

David Ward: This is an improvement on the previous position, but who will pay for it all? Will there be a planning fee? Will the local authority be expected to pick up the cost of the consultation in the event of an objection, along with the cost of advertising it to local residents?

Michael Fallon: No planning fee will be levied on the home owner making the notification. If the extension proceeds with no objections, the local authority will benefit from a considerable saving, because it would otherwise have had to bear the costs of a full planning application. However, we shall be happy to discuss with local authorities, in the normal way, whether in the fullness of time the scheme is likely to impose any additional cost on them.

David Ward: Normally people object to an extension that is beyond the current permitted level. The position is likely to become more contentious, and there is likely to be a large increase in the number of neighbours who complain. Who will fund the local authority’s inspections and the resulting consultation?

Michael Fallon: The local authorities would have to do that if a planning application were made in the normal way. Under the new relaxed procedure, the costs will be lower. As I have said, however, if it seems likely
	that there will be a significantly greater burden on local authorities, we will discuss that with them to ensure that it does not happen.

Anne Main: I am pleased that the Government have taken account of Back Benchers’ concern about neighbour notification. Does my right hon. Friend know how many authorities currently believe, or know, that they are operating with a deficit in terms of planning fees? My local authority believes that it subsidises planning, and that the fees recovered do not cover the planning service that is currently provided.

Michael Fallon: The object of the scheme is that we end up with fewer, not more, planning applications, and that should save local authorities some expense.

John McDonnell: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Fallon: I think that I must make some more progress first.
	If approval is not given, the home owner will be able to appeal against a refusal, or may wish to submit a full planning application. As with normal planning consents, neighbours will not be able to appeal against a grant of permission. The approval process will be straightforward, and—I think that this is the answer to my hon. Friend’s question—we do not expect it to impose significant costs on local authorities. It will ensure that uncontroversial improvements are dealt with quickly, it will protect neighbours’ amenity, with the council as an independent arbiter, and it will ultimately make it cheaper for people to extend their homes and will devolve more power to local residents.

John McDonnell: I apologise for being slightly late. I was chairing another meeting.
	One of the issues that have been raised continually with me is that of developments that overlook neighbours and, for instance, the positioning of windows. What information will be available to neighbours about that?

Michael Fallon: The applicant will have to send a letter to the local authority notifying it of the proposal and enclosing plans, which will of course have to receive building control consent. There will be a full notification, but it will not go through the normal planning regime process.

Andrew Bingham: I welcome the change in the present position. The Minister mentioned loss of amenity. Would building materials constitute that? Would, for example, the construction of a breeze-block building represent a loss of amenity?

Michael Fallon: If it affected the amenity of the neighbour, that might well be an issue. It is hard for me to speculate on exactly what kind of amenity would be affected by a breeze block, but if a neighbour felt that it was having an effect, that neighbour would be able to object.
	We have listened to the concerns that have been expressed, and have responded directly to them. I hope that I have explained to the House how our amendment addresses, in particular, the concern about the impact of our proposals on neighbours.

Tracey Crouch: Can the Minister confirm that places such as conservation areas and areas of outstanding natural beauty will be exempt from this, and that the usual article 4 route will still be available where there are particular concerns—about flooding or run-off, for instance?

Michael Fallon: Yes, I can confirm that this does not apply to conservation areas, and that the ability of a local authority to use an article 4 direction is not impaired by the changes we are making.
	I hope the House will now allow me to turn to the employee shareholder clause.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Fallon: Of course; I shall do so one last time.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for giving way. I have some remaining concerns about situations in which objections are not made, perhaps because of loyalty to neighbours or because of absent landlords. That could result in a building being erected that has long-lasting implications on future householders in an area. Will the Minister address that point in discussions with the Local Government Association?

Michael Fallon: I am very happy to ensure that my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government will discuss that with the LGA, if that will be helpful.
	Let me now turn to—

John Redwood: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Fallon: Of course.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and he need not look so heavy-hearted, as I am going to say that I greatly welcome the changes, and that many Members on the Government Benches feel the Government have listened and come up with a sensible proposal. Will he just confirm that existing permitted development rights are not in any way affected by this new procedure, and that they are still there in perpetuity for people to use without any hassle?

Michael Fallon: Yes, I can confirm that, and I can also assure my right hon. Friend that I was not heavy-hearted; I was simply keen to move on to the employee shareholder clause, and I was wondering how long I was going to be occupied in explaining how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had fulfilled his commitment last week to listen to the concerns expressed in this House and to come forward with what I suggest is a very reasonable compromise.
	Let me now, finally, turn to the employee shareholder clause. It establishes a new employment status between employee and worker. The Government have always been clear that this measure is entirely voluntary, and that it is open to both individuals and companies to use it if they choose to do so. I emphasised that again in our debate a week ago. In response to concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) and peers in the other place, last week
	I reassured both Houses about the wholly voluntary nature of this new status. I made a commitment that no one can be forced to apply for, or to accept, an employee shareholder job. I announced that the Government had revised and clarified the position for those claiming jobseeker’s allowance. The position now is that jobseekers cannot be compelled to apply for or accept an employee shareholder job if they do not consider it right for them.

Chuka Umunna: The Minister has 977 people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in his constituency, and long-term unemployment is up by 10%. Can he confirm that employers in his constituency will be able to make job offers conditional on JSA recipients accepting employee shareholder status, thus giving up most of their fundamental employment rights at the same time? That is the point of departure for many people with the Minister on the issue of whether or not this is voluntary.

Michael Fallon: It is not only voluntary, but I made it clear to the House last week that jobseekers cannot be mandated to accept a job in those particular circumstances, and I cannot make it clearer than that.
	In addition, I want to reassure the House that we will not allow individuals to use this employment status for tax avoidance. The Finance Bill includes several measures, such as excluding those who already own 25% of a company and connected persons from benefiting from the capital gains tax exemption.
	The will of the elected House has now been expressed twice. However, the other place has again rejected this measure. After considering the concerns expressed by noble Lords, we have laid further amendments to ensure that individuals entering into this employment status fully understand the opportunities and risks involved. I will now set them out.
	First, the company must give the individual a written statement of particulars, setting out the employment rights that are not associated with this status and detailing the rights attached to the shares. That will include whether the shares being provided as part of the employee shareholder status have any voting or dividend rights, whether there are rights to have the shares bought back or redeemed, and whether an individual may freely sell the shares to anyone, or if there are restrictions. This written statement is separate from that already required under the Employment Rights Act 1996, which sets out the terms and conditions of the job, and which the employee is entitled to receive within two months of starting work with the employer.
	This employee shareholder statement of particulars must be provided in writing before the potential employee shareholder starts the job. It means that an individual can only become an employee shareholder if that has taken place and if the other criteria in the clause are met. The clause ensures that potential employee shareholders understand precisely what the new employment status involves.

Chuka Umunna: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, but I respectfully completely disagree with him. What guarantee is there that the prospective employee shareholders will even understand that statement? It
	will be explaining dividends, pre-emption rights and other technical and complex matters. What guarantee is there that they will understand the information in the statement, or know whether to seek further legal advice and have a proper discussion about these matters?

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, and I will come on to the issue of the advice that may be available to the employee in those circumstances.

David Ward: I think I understand the issues to do with mandating and JSA, but would it be legal for an employer to refuse to take on someone who did not want to be part of such a scheme, and if the employer did refuse, how on earth would we know about that?

Michael Fallon: I do not think we would know in those circumstances whether that was the exact reason why somebody had not been offered the position, but what I did last week—and I hope my hon. Friend accepted this—was make it absolutely clear that nobody who had jobseeker status could be mandated to have to accept a job.
	Our second amendment prevents an employee shareholder contract from taking legal effect until seven days have elapsed from when the offer is made to the individual. The amendment affords an individual a period to consider the risks and rewards of the contract. That removes any question that individuals might be pressurised into accepting a contract.
	These amendments mean that an individual who has chosen to apply for, and has been offered, an employee shareholder job has both the information and the time they need to consider whether the job is right for them. Noble Lords, including my noble Friends Lord King and Lord Forsyth, also expressed a concern about the employee shareholder receiving independent advice. I want to reassure them and all noble Lords that the Government are taking that concern seriously and are reflecting on the remarks made in the other place yesterday evening.
	This new status gives in particular young and new companies a fresh option that they may use to attract high-calibre employees who can share in the growth potential of the company, and I urge the House to support these amendments.

Ian Murray: I shall start with the issues that the Minister raised on permitted development. We welcome the Government’s change of heart. This is a victory not just for Opposition Members but for Members who are sitting behind the Secretary of State who have helped us to protect the gardens of England from inappropriate developments. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State laughs, but he was dragged kicking and screaming to table the amendments.
	I still find it puzzling that the honeyed words from the Secretary of State last week were so mysterious and vague when the new arrangements unveiled look very much like the planning permission system. First, the house owner will have to provide plans and details to the planning department, including details of the materials to be used, just as happens now. Secondly, the planning department will have to notify neighbours, just as happens now. If there are objections, the planning authority will
	take the decision whether to grant planning permission, just as happens now. The only change is that in the absence of objections from the directly adjoining properties, the development will automatically go ahead, notwithstanding any objections from other affected neighbours, or from the council, or from the wider community—and, of course, the absence of the £172 planning fee.
	I have a couple of questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer if he has time to sum up, on how neighbours might be affected by the proposals. First, by limiting the possibility of objecting to an extension to those who share the immediate boundary with the property in question, the Government are taking rights away from other neighbours whose amenity or light may be affected. Remember that we are talking about extensions 26 feet long and 13 feet high, Mr Speaker—about the size of the Speaker’s Chair. Why are the Government not even giving those affected in that way the right to express a view that may be considered material by the planning committee? Secondly, what about neighbours who are away when an application is put in, and who come back 21 days later to discover that work has already started on a structure that will seriously affect their amenity and enjoyment of their back garden? Does the Minister not think that unfair?
	The Minister decided to talk for some 15 minutes on permitted developments, on which the Opposition will not be objecting this afternoon, and very little time on shares for rights. I wonder why. Let me tell the House why I think he did so, because it is clear that the Government are in a total shambles with their ill-thought-out shares for rights proposals.
	Let us remember the origins of the proposal, dreamt up by the Chancellor at Conservative party conference because he had absolutely nothing to say about the economy, growth or unemployment. He proclaimed, let us remember:
	“Workers of the world unite.”
	The Chancellor got his wish. The workers of the world did unite, along with businesses and organisations, to tell the Chancellor that his proposals were wrong. And it is not just the workers that have united, but his own Back Benchers and, of course, the noble Lords in the other place. The narrow 27 majority for the proposals last week in this place highlighted the extent of the discontent with the proposals in this House.
	The Minister’s concessions on jobseeker’s allowance claimants not being forced to take up the shares for rights proposals were welcome, but if the proposals were truly voluntary in the first instance, it cannot be seen as a concession at all. The question that the Minister just avoided, from my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary, is whether an employer can make agreement to such a deal a condition of anyone, let alone a jobseeker’s allowance claimant, taking up a job. He refused to answer that question; perhaps, in his summing-up, he may be able to take that on.
	What did the concession manage to achieve in the other place last night? Let us see. An increase in the majority against the proposals in the other place last night from 54 to 69—a triumph for the Minister, and that emphasised that Lord Forsyth was correct when he said that the policy
	“has all the trappings of something that was thought up by someone in the bath”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 614.]
	I disagree with Lord Forsyth on that. I think it was thought up by someone in the bar, and not at the start of the evening but close to closing time. In fact, if we analyse the figures from last night, we see that Cross Benchers voted 59 to 1 against the proposals, as well as the former Liberal Democrat leaders Ashdown and Steel—and this current Lib Dem leader wants them and so does the Business Secretary. Will the public not ask why?
	Yesterday, the Lords sent a powerful message to this House that the Government are wrong on shares for rights. Their message, for the second time, is loud and clear: “Dump this awful policy now.” Or will the Treasury not allow the Minister to dump the policy? The results of the vote give the Minister the out he was looking for. We know that the BIS Department is not keen on the proposals, we know that the Minister is not an enthusiastic supporter and we certainly know that the businesses of this country do not want it, following a consultation exercise.
	Let us examine what some of the noble Lords said in the other place yesterday. Lord King said,
	“I am not the only Member”
	of this House
	“who feels some embarrassment at finding ourselves in this situation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1267.]
	Baroness Wheatcroft shared Lord King’s embarrassment when she said:
	“My Lords, my noble friend Lord King mentioned a degree of embarrassment at finding himself in this situation, which I certainly share.”
	She went on to say that the Financial Times,
	“that great bastion of employee rights, ran a leader the day after the last debate in this House in which it said that this legislation contained,
	‘little to like and a lot to fear’.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1269.]
	That was not all in the other place last night. Lord Deben, on shares for rights, said:
	“Frankly, it does not matter much what we decide on this because I do not think anyone is going to take it up and I do not think it is going to happen.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1262.]
	Baroness Warnock, a Cross Bencher, said in the other place yesterday that she discussed the proposals with Charlie Mayfield, the chairman of the John Lewis Partnership and said:
	“He was consulted about this proposal and simply regarded it as laughable.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1261.]
	The chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, the bastion of employee ownership in this country with its much-lauded model, is saying that the proposals are laughable. So the noble Lords have spoken.
	Let me emphasise what Lord Forsyth said in the other place. He talked about the £1 billion loss to the Treasury in tax. This is the Chancellor’s pet project that loses the Treasury £1 billion and does absolutely nothing for growth. The Bill is supposed to be a growth Bill; it is nothing like it.

John Redwood: I am getting confused. The hon. Gentleman first says that the proposal is so awful that no one will implement it, and then that its effect will be £1 billion of lost tax. It cannot be both. Which one does he really think?

Ian Murray: I am delighted to receive the intervention, because it is the Treasury that says that £1 billion will be lost and Lord Deben, a Member with whom the right hon. Gentleman probably shared time in government, who said that perhaps no one will take this up. So it is not we who are saying it but Conservative peers in the other place and the Treasury’s own assessment of what will be lost. Whether someone takes it up or not, the Treasury is saying that there will be £1 billion of lost taxation. Perhaps Ministers in this House might want to go and chat to some of their colleagues in the other place and decide what they are going to do with it.
	Critically, there was a hint in the Lords that some kind of deal had been done between the Business Secretary, who incidentally has said nothing on these proposals, and the Treasury. Can the Minister tell the House what that deal is? The public deserve to know what deal has been done between the two senior Government Secretaries of State to push the proposals through. I will take an intervention from the Minister now if he wishes to tell the country what that deal is, but I suspect he will not take up that opportunity.
	Let me highlight another comment from the other place last night. The shadow Minister, Lord Adonis, who took the report through the other place yesterday, said:
	“Where does this report come from? We all know: it is on the rebound from the Beecroft proposal to do away with certain employment rights in respect of unfair dismissal and instead to substitute a single payment that would have resulted from it. The Business Secretary was not prepared to go along with that. Then, as we have heard from various parts of the House”—
	including from the Government side of the House last night in the other place—
	“some kind of deal was apparently done between the Chancellor and the Business Secretary to resurrect a version of the Beecroft proposal in return for shares.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1271.]
	The House needs to know, before the legislation is passed, what that deal was.
	Lord Forsyth emphasised it when he said:
	“the Government seem determined just to railroad this through and not deal with the arguments.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1258.]
	Those arguments are not diminished by the amendments that the Government tabled this morning—amendments that were only confirmed at 11.27 this morning. They are scurrying around, trying to find solutions, when the best solution is to consign the policy to the dustbin.
	Under the scheme, which creates a third type of employment status, as the Minister mentioned, employers may award employees at least £2,000 in shares in exchange for the employee’s giving up a bundle of employment rights, including ordinary unfair dismissal, the right to a statutory redundancy payment, the right to request flexible working, and the right to training. The Government are determined to pursue the scheme, but the list of concessions that they have produced today, and which they hope will get it through the Lords, is completely inadequate and does not address the fundamental issues of the giving up of employee rights for a few worthless shares.
	There were many interventions in the House last week. The Opposition wholeheartedly support employee ownership, but there does not have to be a link between employee ownership and giving up one’s employment rights. Many Government Back Benchers who are in
	their place this afternoon made the point about how wonderful employee ownership was, but the fundamental point is that employee ownership does not have to be increased by giving up fundamental rights at work.
	Let me go through some of the concessions that have been presented to the House today. First, there is a provision that the employee cannot accept the offer within seven days of it being made. How that would work in practice is completely unclear. An employer remains free to refuse to offer the job to a prospective employee who does not want to take up employee shareholder status. That is a critical point about whether it is voluntary. With the employment market as depressed as it is, why would an employee want to turn this down? People are desperate to get back into work. That is why the proposal cannot be seen as voluntary. Why would an employer not just say that this has to be accepted or the job offer will be withdrawn? Perhaps the job will be offered to a number of candidates, and the candidate who accepts the shares for rights proposal will ultimately get it.

Nick de Bois: May I challenge the hon. Gentleman to think about his premise? He said earlier that these are worthless shares. I do not think that any business or entrepreneur in the country who takes such a risk would believe that shares are worthless. That is the big difference on the Government Benches. Does he agree that the fact that the Opposition think the value of the shares is zero colours their judgment of how an employee who wants to take a risk and an opportunity would see great value in having a stake in a business?

Ian Murray: There is a misconception among Government Members that no Opposition Member has run their own business. Well I have run several businesses before I came into the House. At the start, of course the value of shares was high, because we were investing in the businesses, but that is not always the case. Ultimately, when businesses shed staff or employees have to leave, shares will be worth less. That is a fundamental principle of business. When I come on to the concessions that the Government have put together, it will be seen that that is absolutely right.

Nick de Bois: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the end of a business. When one starts a business—as I am sure he has done, given what he just said—it is to achieve success and growth. That is when the shares offer their greatest opportunity. They will be offered for no cash in return for a stake and the potential of profit later, with a tax-free advantage. It really is a win-win.

Ian Murray: I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, who undoubtedly has a lot of business experience, but he clearly has not read the legislation or understood what it is trying to achieve here. He is right that the shares are being given out, they will have a high value. But at the very time that employees need to cash in those shares because, for example, they have given up the right to redundancy, their value will be lower than when they were first given, or they will be worthless. The residual value of the shares will be far lower when an employee is effectively being sacked than it was when the employee was being taken on. That is why some of the concessions have been made.
	Let me come to the written statement that the Minister has suggested to set out the details of the shares being offered, including whether they are voting or non-voting shares, whether they carry a dividend, whether they carry a right to a share in a company’s assets if it is wound up, whether pre-emption rights are excluded, and details of drag-along and tag-along rights. Most employees will not understand the implications of this information, and there is nothing to prevent employers from issuing pages of gobbledygook about the shares that buries the information somewhere within.
	I am struck by the provision about winding up, which is specifically mentioned in the concessions. Surely this is the crux of the matter. [Interruption.] Members are chuntering away, but if they wish to intervene, they may do so. How can it be right to give up the right to a redundancy payment at the same time as the shares may not be worth anything at winding up. The term “winding up” is used in the Government’s amendment to the proposals. Shareholders tend to get nothing in the winding up of any business after the creditors are taken into account. Why would any employee want to do this? We end up with a situation where, at a time when an employee would want to cash in the shares, the company is in real financial trouble and the shares are worth far less than the initial value or nothing at all.

Nick de Bois: The short answer is that if one takes shares, one takes a risk. The difference is that employees are not being asked to part with a cash investment up front.

Ian Murray: That might be the case, but one does not have to give up one’s fundamental worker’s rights to take the risk in shares in businesses. Many employees take shares in businesses, but they do not give up the rights to redundancy, to request flexible working, to training and to unfair dismissal and maternity rights. Last week, the hon. Gentleman made an impassioned speech about his running of businesses and the fact that his employees are always at the forefront of his mind. The vast majority of those in this country who start a business have employees at the forefront of their minds. But relationships do break down and businesses do run into trouble. I agree with him to a certain extent, but missing from the jigsaw is the fact that fundamental rights at work still have to be given up in order to take on those shares. He fails to recognise that that is part of the overall equation.
	Let us examine the issue of tax avoidance that my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary mentioned in the House last week. The Treasury says—it is a Treasury document—that this will cost £1 billion, but the true cost may be more than that, as my hon. Friend said. As the Treasury’s December 2012 policy costing document says,
	“It is hard to predict how quickly the increased scope for tax planning will be exploited.”
	Let me examine this:
	“increased scope for tax planning will be exploited.”
	That sounds to me like tax avoidance and it was picked up by Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said:
	“just as government ministers are falling over themselves to condemn such behaviour”—
	tax avoidance—
	“that same government is trumpeting a new tax policy that looks like it will foster a whole new avoidance industry.”
	The Treasury document, by using the terminology
	“increased scope for tax planning will be exploited”,
	emphasises what Paul Johnson has said.

David Ward: Is not the value of shares very much up to those who control the shares? The value can be controlled by the majority shareholders, who often are directors of the company and can devalue a company at a moment’s notice by transferring assets out of the business into another company that they can set up.

Ian Murray: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. He voted with the Opposition last week, on which he should be commended. The other issue around the concept of dilution of shares is that when new investment comes into a business, shares can be diluted. There is no provision for employees who are shareholders to be informed of that. Assets can be transferred out of businesses and there is nothing to stop employers, when they wish to make large scale redundancies of employee owners in the business, diluting the shares before they do so.

Nick de Bois: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, under his Government, the Companies Act 2006 had some clear safeguards for minority shareholders, which specifically protect their interests and allow resort to court if minority shareholdings are unfairly diluted.

Ian Murray: We are back to the same point from the hon. Gentleman. He still refuses to recognise the equation here. That may all be correct, but at the same time fundamental rights still have to be given up. Indeed, those safeguards in the 2006 Act have been wrapped around by many companies in terms of the dilution of share ownership.

John Redwood: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s attack on the idea of some tax privilege in the scheme. I imagine that he is a member of the House of Commons pension scheme, and there is tax relief on all contributions that he makes into the scheme, and full tax relief on gains and income in the fund. That seems perfectly reasonable. How does that differ from the tax advantages of this scheme?

Ian Murray: Being a member of the House of Commons pension scheme does not mean that I give up my rights at work. The equation is not there. I am not even sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has spoken in favour of these proposals. Does he support them? I am not sure that he does.

John Redwood: I am asking about tax avoidance. The hon. Gentleman has just condemned the scheme as tax avoidance. I am asking whether he is against all tax avoidance, or does he practise it as well?

Ian Murray: It is a little disingenuous to ask a Member of the House who is at the Dispatch Box whether he practises tax avoidance. That is stretching it a bit far. I am merely quoting from the Treasury’s 2012 policy document, which says that
	“It is hard to predict how quickly the increased scope for tax planning will be exploited”.
	The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that there will be a whole new avoidance industry in terms of the capital gains tax on these shares, and in terms of PAYE and national insurance. If Government Members do not believe me, they can listen to what Lord Forsyth—as a Scottish Member of Parliament, I never thought that I would agree so much with him—said last night in the other place:
	“I remain concerned as to whether the estimate made that this could result in more than £1 billion disappearing in tax-avoidance schemes is correct. It is not clear to me whether the Treasury has found ways of ring-fencing this scheme, which provides for up to £50,000 of capital gains tax to be relieved, and whether this could not be used as a great tax-avoidance scheme.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1257.]
	Finally, there is the new Tory tax bombshell. We all remember that phrase because the Liberal Democrats used it at the last general election to describe the proposed increase in VAT, before voting with their Conservative colleagues to increase it to 20%. In the Budget—this is another concession—the Chancellor announced that the first £2,000 of shares will be PAYE and national insurance-free, but what about values above that? We could have a situation in which new employee shareholders give up their employment rights in return for valueless shares that incur PAYE and national insurance at the point of issue. That would mean that an employee on the basic rate of PAYE and national insurance would have to pay several hundred pounds on the issue of the shares in their first pay. It could cost the employee money.
	What are the Government trying to achieve in that measure? Is it that employees will give up their right to protection against unfair dismissal so that they can be given some shares that their employer will tell them are worth a certain value, but they have no idea whether that is right? When they get the shares, will they have to pay tax and national insurance on them if their value is more than £2,000? Then, at the end, employers, if they decide to sack them, can take the shares back at a valuation that might be less. It does not seem to be a scheme that will set the nation alight with people wishing to participate in it.
	The proposal is worse than Beecroft and goes to the heart of what this ideologically driven Government are all about. They have no economic strategy, no plan other than austerity and unemployment, and the Minister thinks that the holy grail of economic growth is to make it easier to fire rather than hire. It smacks of a Chancellor who is out of ideas and out of touch. I urge the Minister and Government Members to do the right thing: agree with the Lords and dump this policy.

Anne Main: I wish to speak to amendment 7B. I am delighted that the concerns about neighbour notification and the involvement of local people in decision making have been listened to. That was crucial for many Members of this House. However, I would still like to tease out answers on some of my concerns about amendment 7B.
	St Albans, according to the Department for Communities and Local Government’s own figures, handles twice the number of planning applications as a normal planning authority. We are surrounded by green belt, thankfully,
	but are under direct pressure from many developments, including domestic developments. The fees collected do not cover the planning applications already being made, so we run a subsidy to the planning operations of St Albans district council.
	I suggest that the fees for applications are quite modest. They form a very small part of a whole development. For example, they do not include architect fees, which can be substantial, or any of the other land searches that might be needed, for instance when tree protection orders are in place on a site. I do not believe that the fees are what deter people from making applications for a housing development, perhaps for a growing family. What I am concerned about is that we will now have what I call “planning-lite.”
	The original amendment in the Lords, which was defeated there, suggested not involving planning officers, neighbour notification or any other work for the council whatsoever. The new amendment, which I welcome as an improvement on the old one, would bring the planning system into the permitted development rights decision-making process and, as a result, mean direct costs for many councils, particularly those, such as mine, that have a significant number of planning applications. I cannot see the savings. I would love to see some sort of spreadsheet showing how that cannot be a burden on the council, as it means taking those applications, because they are above the original permitted development rights figures, out of the current planning system, in which a fee is paid for examination and registration for neighbour notifications and perhaps even a site visit, and moving them so that the officer still does the same work but does not get any of the fee. I urge the Minister to monitor that situation, because in a heavily utilised planning department, such as the one in St Albans, I believe that this will have a negative impact on the council.
	I am also concerned that we are effectively introducing a third planning system and that there might be pressure on neighbours not to object or to trigger the process. I can envisage developers going around and reassuring neighbours that a development will not be a problem, and the neighbours might feel reassured, but is money to be put into enforcement if the neighbours, when they see the edifice going up, are unhappy because what was described to them is not what is being delivered on their doorstep?
	Those are details, but having served as chair of a planning committee and, like other Members, having a postbag filled with planning issues, I know that they are important details to reassure not only hon. Members in the House, but those of us who will face neighbours who say that they were not really aware what they could object to and that a developer had assured them that they had the permitted development rights. We will not be party to those conversations.

Andrew Bingham: Like my hon. Friend, I welcome this change. Does she share my concern that neighbours will need to be able not only to look at the plans, but to read and understand them?

Anne Main: I do share that concern. Obviously, the detail is still very light. For example, will the plans be available on websites? Since councillors do not seem to be involved in the system, someone could potentially go
	around and advise someone who is not as savvy as hon. Members are on the implications of a structure for them in order to form an objection. There is a very active civic society in St Albans that takes a keen interest in planning. I am disappointed that no one other than an immediate neighbour can form an objection. The people who run the Watercress Wildlife Association in St Albans, for example, take a keen interest in the water run-off from further uphill. Will we have a domino effect of several applications on large permitted development rights that eventually start creating soggy gardens further downhill?
	I know that that is all detail and that this is a short debate, and I do not wish to tire the House, but my main concern, if we are to move to the new “planning-lite”, is that we seem to have given additional responsibilities to councils but no additional resources. I urge the Minister to listen to the words of councils, which already feel that they subsidise the planning system. We also do not know whether there will be non-determination periods. I have no idea whether the permitted development right period of determination would be similar. What council would prioritise a determination that has no fees associated with it over a determination that has a determination period and a fee associated with it? Will we have two categories of decision making? That all needs to be teased out, and I look forward to the Minister giving guidelines that ensure that councils are consistent in their approach to those decisions and that it is not simply a question of whether someone happens to have a vocal neighbour who is savvy enough to interpret plans and make objections in the interests of the whole community rather than just in self-interest.

Annette Brooke: rose—

Nigel Evans: Before I call Annette Brooke, I remind the House that this business can go no later than 1.49 pm, and that the Minister would like a few minutes at the end to sum up.

Annette Brooke: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I assure you that I rise to speak very briefly to Lords amendments 7B and 7C. I acknowledge that we are in a better place than we were last week and thank the Secretary of State for his work on the issues. However, because so many questions remain, I certainly retain a preference for Lords amendment 7, which I think sets out a good solution.
	I will quickly run through the objections to the proposals and the uncertainties. I would like to reinforce the point about finance for local authorities. If we are not careful, and if there is no extra money going to local planning authorities when they clearly have duties for which they are not receiving a fee, we might have a situation in which those people who cannot afford extensions end up subsidising those who can, which seems unfair. We are talking not only about planning applications, but enforcement, because there might well need to be enforcement, whether or not there have been objections, if a building does not match what was submitted in the first place.
	I remain concerned that not all neighbours will object, possibly because they are absent at the time or because elderly and vulnerable people who depend on their neighbours for help will not feel able to object. It is
	essential that we build in a requirement for the local authority to at least conduct a desktop exercise to consider all the plans in their context.
	I reinforce the points made against seeking objections from adjoining landowners only. In some circumstances it would be appropriate to go further afield. There will be knock-on effects for a row of terraced houses, possibly right along the row, and precedents will be set, even if the initial application was for just one end.
	I plead with the Minister to look at the number of outstanding issues, so that we can truly get the best of both worlds by incentivising building while ensuring proper protection for neighbours.

Michael Fallon: I will first address some of the points that have been made on the change to permitted days. It has been suggested that 21 days might be too short, but that is exactly the same as the equivalent period under the planning regime.
	My hon. Friends the Members for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) have suggested that neighbours further afield than those who adjoin might be denied the opportunity to object to something, but it is hard to understand why they would have stronger objections than those who live much closer. I therefore suggest that the focus of objection needs to be the impact on immediate neighbours.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and I have serious concerns that some people may feel unable to object because of their relationship with their neighbour. They may be disadvantaged, so another neighbour could object on their behalf.

Michael Fallon: I would hope that neighbours would talk to each other and discuss any proposed developments. They should not feel that they are not able to object. As I have said, it is hard to understand why those who live further away should have, or should be entitled to register, stronger objections than those who live next door to the property concerned.
	My hon. Friend raised two other issues, the first of which was what would happen if the extension turned out to be larger than or different from the original proposal. Under the notification, the plans have to be deposited with and approved by the building control regime, which will exercise supervision in exactly the same way as it does for a normal planning application. It would also be able to require modifications to an extension that did not fit the original plans.
	Secondly, my hon. Friend raised the issue of fees, which I addressed when I opened the debate. I repeat that if she turns out to be right about the actual cost to local authorities, we will, of course, discuss any concerns or new pressures on them with the Local Government Association in the normal way. Our position, however, is that there will be considerable savings as a result of a number of applications not going through the normal planning route.
	Finally, on the employer shareholder clause, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) was a little cavalier in some of his arguments. First, he suggested that my noble friend Lord Deben opposed the clause, but he voted for it in a Division last night, so the hon.
	Gentleman was not accurate about that. Secondly, he suggested that people would be forced to give up their employment rights for what he called “worthless shares”, but they cannot be forced to surrender their employment rights unless those shares are worth at least £2,000. If they turn out to be worth less than £2,000, the employee shareholder would, of course, be fully entitled to be considered to have the rights that he or she previously had.

Ian Murray: On the surrender of rights, the Minister just said that if the shares are worth less than £2,000 the employee would have all their normal rights. Surely that is not accurate. Will he correct the record?

Michael Fallon: I did not say that. I said that the value of the shares must be worth at least £2,000. It was the hon. Gentleman who used the word “worthless”. These shares cannot be worthless, or the employee shareholder will not be forced to give up the rights that he or she currently enjoys.
	The hon. Gentleman was also wrong about the suggestion that this would somehow cost £1 billion. That estimate comes not from the Treasury, but from the Office for Budget Responsibility, which estimated that between now and beyond the 2020s—that is, the next 30 years—the total cost of the policy might amount to about £1 billion. The actual Treasury estimate is that the cost of the policy is expected to reach about £80 million by 2017-18.

Chuka Umunna: I want to return to my previous question about the provision of legal advice to people before they agree to accept employee shareholder status. The Minister said that the Government are reflecting on what advice can be given to such employees, but what is he actually going to do?

Michael Fallon: The hon. Gentleman has seen how we reflected on concerns about permitted developments, and concerns about legal advice were expressed extremely cogently last night. We have sought throughout the passage of the Bill to make absolutely sure—I stressed this as long ago as Second Reading—that nobody should be harassed or bullied into accepting this status. I have made it clear that guidance will be available and our amendments improve that by making sure that there will be a statement of written particulars. There will also be a cooling-off period of some seven days, and we are further considering how we might improve the advice available to those who are considering taking up this status.

Simon Hughes: I am conscious that we have only a minute left, but the one issue that my hon. Friend has not yet addressed—I hope he will—is how we prevent discrimination by a would-be employer who favours people who are willing to do the shares deal over those who are not interested.

Michael Fallon: If my right hon. Friend is suggesting discrimination at the point when the shares are offered, the amendments that we have already made will protect
	the employee against that kind of harassment or discrimination. Legitimate concerns have been raised in both Houses that nobody should be forced to accept this status. The essence of the status is choice—the company can choose to offer it and the individual can choose whether or not to accept it, and I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendments 7B and 7C in lieu of Lords amendment 7, to which this House has disagreed.
	Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendment 25 but proposes amendments (a) to (e) to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement.—(Michael Fallon.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 265, Noes 221.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Nigel Evans: A message has been received from the Lords relating to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. Under the orders of the House of 16 April and yesterday, any such message may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	We will debate two motions. The first relates to Lords amendments 35 and 36, and consequential amendments (a) to (c). The second relates to Lords amendment 37 and amendments (a) to (d) in lieu. The motions will be debated together and are available from the Vote Office, as is Bill 163.
	At 12.44 today, the Government tabled a revised version of amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 37. Despite the short notice, the Speaker has selected the amendment for debate. The revised version of the relevant paper is available in the Vote Office.
	Lords message considered forthwith (Order, 22 April).

Clause 56
	 — 
	Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Jo Swinson: I beg to move,
	That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendment 36, does not insist on its disagreement to Lords amendment 35 and proposes consequential amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill.

Nigel Evans: With this we will consider the motion that this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendment 37, but proposes amendments (a) to (d) in lieu.

Jo Swinson: I would like to put on the record my thanks for your flexibility, Mr Deputy Speaker, in accepting the late tweak to the amendment that had been tabled earlier this morning in relation to Lords amendment 37 on the issue of caste. I shall come to that issue in a second or two.
	We are returning to the discussion on the equality provisions of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which were debated in the other place yesterday. We have paid regard to the strong views and concerns that were expressed in that debate, and have tabled motions to respond to them.
	As I have made clear in the course of our debates, the Government want a strong and effective Equality and Human Rights Commission. As part of that and to focus the EHRC on its core functions, we proposed the repeal of its power under section 3 of the Equality Act 2006, which is known more commonly as the general duty. However, in light of the clear views expressed in the other place, the Government have reconsidered our position and will not insist on our disagreement to Lords amendment 35. That will allow the general duty to remain in the 2006 Act. Although it is accepted by all that the duty has a symbolic rather than a practical effect, it is clear that considerable importance is attached to this overarching statement.
	We maintain that the commission’s monitoring and reporting should be carried out in respect of its core equality and human rights duties. The EHRC will continue to be required to monitor and report on changes in society, but, as has been agreed to in the Bill, that should relate to the areas that it is uniquely placed to influence and change: equality, diversity and human rights. For that reason, the motion is to disagree with Lords amendment 36. Instead, the EHRC will monitor its progress against the duties specified in sections 8 and 9 of the 2006 Act, and the form of that reporting will remain unchanged.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend’s announcement is very welcome. She knows that our party has always argued that there should be a general overarching duty—[Laughter.] No, that is completely the case, but the matter had to be worked through within the coalition. Her announcement sends a strong signal that there is a principle and that practical implementation is available to the commission.

Jo Swinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He speaks with passion on equality issues and has done so for many decades. I know that he speaks from the heart on this matter. I also understand the strength of feeling on this issue that he and I have heard expressed by activists in our own party and from many other corners.
	Ensuring that the EHRC reports on the aims set out in sections 8 and 9 of the 2006 Act means that it will be able to capture the situation more meaningfully over time by reporting every five years and monitoring its key equality and human rights duties.
	Retaining the general duty in section 3 requires a consequential amendment to ensure that the word “groups” in the general duty is defined effectively. The amendment that we propose therefore reinserts the parts of section 10 of the 2006 Act that define the term “groups” for the purpose of the Act.
	I turn now to Lords amendment 37, which relates to caste, and amendments (a) to (d) that the Government tabled today. In our previous debate on this matter, I made it clear that the Government recognise that caste prejudice occurs in the UK. Even if that happens at a low level, such prejudice is unacceptable and must not be tolerated. I also said that, although we remained unconvinced that there was sufficiently compelling evidence to require the introduction of legislation, the Government were not averse in principle to introducing legislation, should it become clear that that was the appropriate solution to the severity of the problem.
	Strong views have been expressed in the other place on this matter. In the light of those views, we have reconsidered our position and agreed to introduce caste-related legislation. However, we need to ensure that any legislation that we introduce will have the desired effect. We therefore propose amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 37 that will impose a duty on the Government to exercise the power in the Equality Act 2010 that would make caste an aspect of race for the purposes of the Act. We think that that option, rather than the amendment proposed yesterday in the other place, is the best way forward.
	As has been discussed in this House and in the other place, the issue of caste is very complex. Many people have voiced the opinion that our understanding of the
	relevant issues would benefit from some form of consultation to ensure that all the pertinent considerations are identified and, where possible, taken into account. Converting the order-making power in the 2010 Act into a duty will ensure that the Government legislate to incorporate caste protection into discrimination law. It will also give us an opportunity to undertake consideration, possibly through consultation, on whether any other factors, such as the need for specific caste-related exceptions, need to be introduced at the same time that caste is given legal protection. One example that has been raised is that we would not want monitoring forms to demand that people say which caste they are from, because we want to see such a characteristic gone from society and do not want to perpetuate it. Ensuring that there is proper guidance, and that we legislate sensitively, is therefore important. We will all welcome the opportunity of a little time to ensure that it is got right. That will help to ensure that the legislation is focused and robust and addresses all the relevant factors.
	I turn to the slight tweak to the motion, which now includes a provision enabling review of the duty and the effect of the order once the Act, as I hope it will become, has been on the statute book for five years and periodically thereafter. That picks up on the concern expressed in recent debates that, because caste is inherently an undesirable concept that we want to fade away, we do not necessarily want to be stuck with references to it on the statute book, given that that will no longer be necessary once, as we all hope, the concept has disappeared from UK society. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said in a letter to me at the end of last week:
	“Given that we are all united in our desire to see caste as an identifier in the UK erode over time, it would also be possible to put in place a timetable for statutory review to establish at what point the measure could be withdrawn if caste discrimination has become a thing of the past.”
	That point was also picked up by Baroness Thornton in her closing remarks in last night’s debate. The new provision addresses those concerns by introducing a review and sunset clause.

Kate Green: I am very pleased indeed that the Government now accept the importance of retaining the general duty. I must say that I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) argued that that had always been the position of his party, given that only the other day the Minister, who is also a member of his party, argued the exact opposite. None the less, we are prepared to welcome repenting sinners to the fold.
	As the Minister is well aware, there was widespread concern in civil society and across Parliament at the prospect of repealing the general duty. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness Campbell on her championing of the retention of the duty both in the House of Lords and outside Parliament. I also pay tribute to the Minister for heeding the concerns that have been expressed.
	The Minister has said in the past that section 3 of the 2006 Act is of symbolic importance. That is right, and symbolism is important, but perhaps even more importantly, it is a powerful statement of our values, aims, approach and ambitions for equality and human rights. I am pleased that that strong message and that underpinning of what equality and human rights mean to us will remain at the heart of our equalities legislation.
	We are pleased by the Government’s acceptance of the vote in the House of Lords last night, and we will accept their insistence on disagreement to Lords amendment 36, on monitoring. However, I issue a word of caution to the Minister, which Baroness Campbell raised when the amendment was proposed. It is important that the Government take care to ensure that the EHRC does not simply monitor its own actions but that its role in holding up a mirror to the whole of society on progress on equality and human rights is properly cemented and protected. Ongoing monitoring and reporting enabling that is important, as is the EHRC having the resources necessary to do that properly.
	We are pleased that the Government have now accepted the need for legal protection against discrimination on the grounds of caste. Everyone agrees that caste has absolutely no place in our society, and that if there is even one case of such discrimination, proper action must be taken and there must be proper access to redress. The Minister is well aware of the strength of feeling on the matter—she alluded to it in her remarks. I pay tribute to the common effort across Parliament among the parties and with Cross Benchers to reach this point. I especially want to place on record again our gratitude to the noble Lords Harries and Avebury and, of course, my noble Friend Baroness Thornton, who have done a tremendous amount to bring us to this point.
	I understand the offence and hurt that the very notion of caste causes. As the Minister said, it is important that nothing we do in the House entrenches caste in our society. Rather, we must help to move forward in a direction that leads to its eradication. In recent weeks, the Opposition have been bringing people together to discuss the right way to do that in the context of what is, as the Minister said, a complex subject. I venture to suggest that we have already done more in three weeks than the Government have done in three years.
	I want to place on record our gratitude to the Sikh Council UK, the Sikh Federation, the British Sikh Consultative Forum, the Anti-Caste Legislation Committee, the Alliance of Hindu Organisations, the Dalit Solidarity Network UK, CasteWatchUK, the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance and others, all of which have spent time talking to us over recent weeks.
	For our part, we have always been clear that there needs to be legal protection, and we welcome the Minister’s commitment to legislation today. However, having decided that they will legislate, the Government have a responsibility to get the detail right. We have consistently called for both legislation and safeguards, and my noble Friend Baroness Thornton repeated the necessary safeguards in the House of Lords yesterday. I know from the Minister’s remarks this afternoon that she has taken account of them. We called for the definition of caste to be set out following consultation, which should include consideration of the possibility of substituting descent for caste, which has some support. The definition must recognise that caste is not specific to any religion but is a social and cultural practice extending across different parts of communities. It can be subscribed to by, and affect, members of any or no religion, and the definition must reflect that.
	As the Minister said, it is crucial that legislation is not implemented in a way that entrenches caste identifiers in day-to-day employment and other services. We should reduce, not increase, the number of people who are identified by caste. The guidance must ensure that there is no requirement on individuals to disclose their caste in any circumstances, and employers and providers of services should never seek such data.
	Concerns have been expressed to us, and were expressed in the House of Lords last night, about the possible perverse effect of education programmes, including the Government’s programme “Talk for a Change”. I urge Ministers to discuss those concerns with the community.
	Like the Minister, I hope that caste as an identifier in the UK will be eroded over time, and we will support the late-tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment 37, which will introduce a sunset clause. We suggested such a change, so that if we achieve the state that we hope to and caste is wholly eradicated, we may remove the provision from the statute book. I hope that the sunset clause will act as an impetus for action, and we welcome it in that spirit.
	Yesterday in the House of Lords, the noble Baroness Stowell argued that the Government needed time to address the detail of the matter, and we agree. We have always been clear about the need for a guarantee of legislation, but it is vital that the Government take time to consult carefully and in detail on its implementation. As a result of the conversations that we have had with community organisations, we proposed that safeguards should be subject to consultation in communities, with a delay in implementation to allow that to happen. I would be grateful if the Minister assured us that commencement of the provision will leave enough time for that thorough community consultation to take place. That will be vital to achieving cross-community support.
	The Opposition are pleased at the progress that has been made on both the general duty and the caste amendment. This is a good day for equality, and I thank the Minister and many others for the efforts that have been made to bring us to this point.

Simon Hughes: I would like to pick up where the hon. Lady finished and say that I share the view that this is a good day for equality. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for getting us to this point. I will not resile from what I said in my intervention, which is that I and my colleagues have always held such views. Indeed, our party worked with the Labour party when it was in government to put into legislation the general equality duty governing the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Anyone who is critical of that assertion clearly does not understand that in coalition Governments one party can hold a continuing obligation or view that is not necessarily persuasive to the Government as a whole. The two parties in the coalition clearly started from a different position, and it has taken until today and the clearly expressed view of the House of Lords for people to arrive at an understanding that it is better to retain the general equality duty. I am sure that is the right decision. It sends out the right signals and guides the commission in its work ahead.
	Like others—certainly like my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller)—I was at the Bar of the House of Lords yesterday evening listening to the debate on caste. There were views on both sides. The Government
	were arguing to retain their position and said that we should not add caste to the Equality Act 2010, and others argued against that. The Government were supported by people on both sides, but the view of the House of Lords was that we should add caste to the list of issues on the basis of which people could allege discrimination, but that we must recognise that there is a division in the communities affected as to what that measure will mean in practice and how it will be responded to.
	There are clear community views. I was at a Vaisakhi event with colleagues from across the House last night, and views were expressed to me by members of the Sikh community that they did not want this change. I had just heard Lord Singh of Wimbledon arguing strongly that in Sikhism there is no such thing as caste, and I am persuaded to take his view as he is authoritative and well-regarded on that issue. However, I think that the Minister has now arrived at the right place, with the Government, and caste as a basis for discrimination will be added to the Equality Act. The problem might not be hugely prevalent, but there is enough evidence of it in certain places for it to be recognised. It is important—I am sure the Government take this view, and it was argued by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—to have a period between now, the passage of the Bill, and its implementation, to ensure that people understand the implications of the measure across communities.
	In the Hindu community there is certainly a division of view and I think we are right to support those in the Dalit and other communities who say, “We should know. We are the victims.” Their voices have prevailed. It is also wise of the Government to hope that over five years this measure may become unnecessary, and there will later be the opportunity to review it.
	The fact that a bicameral Parliament works is evidenced by where we are today, with two Chambers having debates and adding to the wisdom of one—I, of course, want the other one to be reformed and to become either wholly or partly elected, but that business has clearly been deferred. Until then, however, I am glad that the House of Lords has contributed so firmly to our debates, and I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for making it clear that the law will be changed. I look forward to working with many others across the House and the Government to ensure that communities understand the logic behind the change. At the end of the day, we must have a country in which people know that there is no discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality or caste, and that discrimination is unacceptable wherever it occurs. I think we have got there, and we should be celebrating that.

John McDonnell: I am grateful that common sense has prevailed with regard to the EHCR. It demonstrates that debates in this place and elsewhere do work, and that we can convince one another of the rightness of a particular position.
	On caste, may I make a number of statements so that I can be clear about what we are agreeing to? If any of these statements is wrong, will someone get up and tell me? That would be helpful. I am sorry to reach this level of simplicity in the House, but it has been a long few weeks. First, if we pass this legislation over the next couple of days, caste discrimination will be outlawed in this country. Is that correct?

Jo Swinson: I am happy to make that clear for the House, and I wanted to respond to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on a similar point. The amendment changes the word “may” to “must” in the Equality Act 2010. At the moment, it states that the Secretary of State “may” make caste discrimination illegal, and that will be changed to say that they “must” lay regulations to make an order. That will require secondary legislation, which gives us time to consult and get that right. When the secondary legislation is passed, the measure will be on the statute book.

John McDonnell: Let me try this phrase: if we enact this legislation, the Government must outlaw caste discrimination in due course.

Jo Swinson: indicated assent.

John McDonnell: That is point 1—stay with me on this. Point 2: in developing the detail of the legislation, we will ensure that we consult the wide range of communities that have an interest in this matter, and seek to mobilise them in eliminating caste discrimination—agreed?

Jo Swinson: indicated assent.

John McDonnell: Thirdly, I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on the limited period of time in which that will be done. I have heard about months and also a full year—whatever view is realistic. I think it would be possible in a year not only to deliver clear definitions and guidance on implementation, but to mobilise the whole community around this issue and to convince people about the need for this provision.
	Finally, this amendment contains a review period so that if we reach nirvana and the elimination of caste discrimination in this country, we can return to the issue and remove the measure from the legislation.
	If all those statements are accurate and agreed across the House, I now understand the point we are at, so perhaps others will as well. I think it has been a significant victory for democratic debate in this Chamber and the wider community. Lots of organisations have been involved in this discussion. Not everybody is happy, but we have reached an understanding that there is a problem to be addressed. No matter how small people think it may be, this issue is significant for many of us and it is being addressed appropriately with some subtlety and understanding of people’s views, so that those are taken into account. I welcome the overall approach that has been agreed.

Richard Fuller: I, too, thank the Minister for bringing forward this amendment and for the thoughtful way it has been crafted. I also thank and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for her speech, and for pointing out some of the practical steps that can be taken.
	I know that those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches have felt a sense of thoughtful consideration and sometimes anguish about this issue, but it has always been fairly straightforward for me. I am not diminished as a person because we ban discrimination on the basis of race or gender, and I will not be diminished as a person because we ban discrimination on the basis on caste. All those are exemplary measures for the Government to take.
	I was reflecting on caste, and it occurred to me that if we define caste as occupation, I too carry my caste in my name. A fuller is an occupation; we are the cleaners of wool—with a rather unsavoury material, I think. I do not know where in the hierarchy that might sit, but I do not think it would be at the top. However, I am a greater man because I am my father’s son, and—to be clear for the record—also because I am my mother’s son.
	I would like to ask a couple of questions and make a point. Will the Minister provide not precision but some clarification on the timetable and say when she anticipates that the order will be enacted?
	May I point out something that has not been mentioned yet? Any repeal of the regulation will require a resolution of each House and will not simply be done by the Government of the day. That is a welcome feature of the legislation.
	Finally, we have spoken of the great contribution to the legislation of community groups with differing views. I pay tribute to my constituents who have brought the matter to my attention and to the attention of others. As with all legislation that is enacted, there is a responsibility to ensure that the protections provided are used appropriately. We need to ensure that it is not open season for people to use the law just because it is another option. The measure is there to be used in very serious cases—hon. Members know that they are rare but extraordinarily important. We do not want the changes to the law to be misused by people, such that the voices that have been heard in the House today are drowned out in the legal courts in future.

Jo Swinson: With the leave of the House, it would be helpful if I responded to a few of the points that have been made in this brief debate.
	I welcome the constructive approach of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and her support for the Government amendments. She raised several points, one of which was the definition of caste and the possibility of using the word “descent”. We will consider carefully how to define “caste”. There could be problems with the “descent” concept—descent is wider than caste, and a number of groups have expressed concerns about using that word as an alternative. We now have time to discuss a wide range of issues, and will involve all interested parties. I hope that also goes some way to dealing with the points made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
	On EHRC monitoring, the hon. Lady referred to last night’s debate and the comments of Baroness Campbell of Surbiton. I watched her speech—she spoke powerfully, as always. The amendments require the EHRC to continue to monitor and report—it must still report on changes in society in relation to equality and human rights, which can mean broad reports on progress in society.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made a helpful speech. Perhaps we should adopt the format of making statements and seeing whether the Minister will stand up and make corrections if necessary. That could be deemed not to be the best way of dealing with parliamentary proceedings—the first suggestion was slightly above my pay grade.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the period of time over which the measure might be implemented. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston suggested in her letter that one to two years for enactment might be the right period. Enactment depends slightly on how much progress is made in dealing with those groups, but that time period is the general ballpark we are looking at.
	That point also goes to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). When I was summing up last week, time was of the essence, and I was unable to complete my remarks, but it is worth noting the powerful speech my hon. Friend made on behalf of his constituents last week as well as today. On his question about repeal, the amendments make it clear that the Minister “may by order” repeal or otherwise amend section 9(5) of the Equality Act 2010. Repeal would therefore happen by order, through the normal parliamentary processes, using the affirmative resolution procedure, so both Houses would have their say. That would happen only after a Minister had ordered a review and published a report. That would be the process by which repeal would happen. I hope that he welcomes that along with the Government amendments.
	I hope that I have answered the questions asked, and that hon. Members feel able to support the motion and amendments.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendment 36, does not insist on its disagreement to Lords amendment 35 and proposes consequential amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill.
	Consequential amendments (a) to (c) agreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (d) made in lieu of Lords amendment 37.

Opposition Day

[Un-allotted Half Day]

Northern Ireland

Vernon Coaker: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the significant and positive developments in Northern Ireland in recent years; acknowledges that challenges remain; and reaffirms its commitment to supporting peace, progress and prosperity in every community.
	It gives me great pleasure to move the motion on the Order Paper in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and to open the debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. Hon. Members do not often get the chance to discuss Northern Ireland on the Floor of the House and I welcome this opportunity. It is good to see many Northern Ireland Members in the Chamber. The motion enables them to speak with a great deal of flexibility on the many issues that affect their constituents.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way so early in the debate. I commend him, as a Front-Bench spokesman, for leading a debate on Northern Ireland. It is important to put on the record that this is the first Front Bencher-led debate on Northern Ireland since the 2010 election.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks—I hope he feels like that at the end of my speech as well as at the beginning. In all seriousness, I am grateful for his remarks. The issues that affect Northern Ireland are taken seriously on both sides of the House. We need to debate them and to consider the challenges.

John Healey: As a Labour Back Bencher, I, too, welcome my hon. Friend’s decision and the decision of the shadow Cabinet to use this Opposition day for a debate on Northern Ireland. That is a strong sign of the continuing Labour concern and commitment to a lasting peace and lasting prosperity in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that, more than anything, we need more jobs and stronger growth? Does he also agree that, at the moment, Northern Ireland is held back by a failing UK economic policy from a failing and feeble Chancellor?

Vernon Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said at the beginning of his intervention. I will go on to say something about the economy and the need for jobs and growth in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, but he is right to make that point.
	The motion should enable Northern Ireland Members to speak with a great deal of flexibility on the many different issues that affect their constituents, as well as allow them and Members from other parts of the United Kingdom to put forward their views and wider considerations on the topic in hand.
	Northern Ireland has been transformed in recent years. I am acutely aware of those on both sides of the House who have made such an enormous contribution to the cause of peace. The fact that many of them are in the Chamber is an indication of their commitment. I
	place on record my gratitude for their guidance and support in helping me to do the job of shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
	This month marks the 15th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. I know there are differing views on the agreement within Northern Ireland and within the House, but along with parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government, Labour Members are proud of our role in helping to bring about that historic accord. We believe that the agreement and the agreements that followed have made Northern Ireland a better place, and we stand by them.
	Good Friday 1998 was a hugely significant moment, when relations within Northern Ireland and throughout these islands were recognised as complicated and challenging, but intertwined and interdependent. The years that followed were difficult, but much good work was done despite the ups and downs of devolution. Hon. Members in the Chamber, including from the Social Democratic and Labour party, played a valued part in that, as did the Ulster Unionist party.
	Six years ago, devolution was fully restored. Since 2007, Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson from the Democratic Unionist party have respectively served as First Ministers, alongside Martin McGuinness from Sinn Fein as Deputy First Minister. The transfer of policing and justice powers was another enormous step forward in 2010, when the Alliance party joined the Executive and took the position of Justice Minister.
	All this shows that we have come a long way in Northern Ireland. As I say frequently, it is a privilege to hold my position most of all because I get to be in Northern Ireland often. The progress made in past years has given rise to a changed Northern Ireland, one that is confident, optimistic and dynamic, and a great place to live, work, invest in and to visit. This year, Northern Ireland gets the chance to show the world the real Northern Ireland; to show what it is really about. The UK city of culture in Derry is a packed 12 months of art, culture, sport, music and drama. I challenge anyone, anywhere to match the unrivalled programme of events that make Londonderry the place to be every day of 2013. The world will literally come to Northern Ireland for the G8 summit. I commend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for their work in bringing this prestigious event to one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom.

Tobias Ellwood: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The world’s spotlight will be on Northern Ireland when the G8 summit takes place in County Fermanagh in June. Does he agree that the summit is an opportunity for the world to see how Northern Ireland has moved forward? There is, however, a worry that those who choose to protest on other issues could do damage. Does he agree that every effort must be made to ensure that security measures are in place so that no damage is caused to Northern Ireland as it moves forward?

Vernon Coaker: I think that every right hon. and hon. Member would agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There is a right to protest in a democracy, but it has to be done lawfully and peacefully. I do not think that any of us would wish to see anything take place that would detract from an important world summit, and an important
	example of how Northern Ireland can demonstrate to the whole world the real Northern Ireland and how it has moved forward.

Simon Hughes: May I associate myself with that last comment and thank the hon. Gentleman for the lead he gives and the work he does in Northern Ireland, together with Ministers? We were all together at the Alliance party conference. The message that people in Northern Ireland need to hear is that the rest of the United Kingdom want them to do well, want them to prosper and want them to succeed. Avoiding violence is the best way to make sure that everybody understands that, and that the message goes out not just to Northern Ireland, but around the world.

Vernon Coaker: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, the fact that we are having a debate on the Floor of the House of the House of Commons in London is a statement of the importance that all of us here attach to what is going on in Northern Ireland. We do take notice and we do care.
	I hope that all of Northern Ireland will benefit from the G8 summit, and I am sure that the Government will involve the Northern Ireland Executive in an appropriate and beneficial way. I know, too, that the Irish Government hold the presidency of the European Union and will play a key part. The world police and fire games take place this summer and will provide a huge opportunity, with thousands of athletes coming to Northern Ireland from countries and continents the length and breadth of the globe. There is a huge belief in Northern Ireland that things that only a few years ago would have seemed impossible, have been and are being done, and that things are moving in the direction.
	Despite those huge strides, however, we cannot be complacent about the challenges that remain. For us in Westminster, devolution should not mean disengagement. We have a role to play and the Government have a responsibility to help keep Northern Ireland moving in the right direction. On security and the economy, decisions made at a UK level have enormous implications for Northern Ireland, a point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey).
	The continuing activities of dissident republican groups give cause for worry. They are small but dangerous, and have shown that, despite being rejected by the vast majority of the public, they are determined to continue their campaign of violence. The awful murder of prison officer David Black a few months ago should serve as a reminder of their deadly intent. Indeed, as we have seen recently, it is thanks only to the dedication of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Army technical officers and the Security Service that further atrocities have been avoided. The foiling of attacks across Northern Ireland is a credit to these very brave and dedicated individuals who keep people safe and secure, and do their job with courage and professionalism in the face of serious threats against them and their families. They have our utmost gratitude, and the support and admiration of the entire House.
	I share the concerns—perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister can address them—about how the additional security funding from the Treasury has been allocated in the four years from 2011 to 2015. There will be a drop in funding next year from £62 million in 2013-14 to £27 million in 2014-15. The police and security services, as I know we all agree, must have all the resources they need to combat terrorist threats. I know that the Secretary of State agrees, and I am sure that the Government will keep all these matters under review, taking advice from the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister.
	The unrest seen in loyalist and Unionist areas following the decision of Belfast city council not to fly the Union flag all year round, also gives cause for concern. There was a sustained campaign of violence and intimidation against public representatives, the police and the wider community. Some of it was orchestrated by paramilitaries, which is unacceptable. There is real frustration and anger in some communities, and I do not downplay that or ignore those who say that their Britishness is being undermined. I hear similar sentiments, albeit from the opposite viewpoint in republican and nationalist areas, where some people feel that their Irishness is not respected or given appropriate recognition. Clearly, these are not easy issues to address.

Lady Hermon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was Prime Minister, he announced in July 2007 that he was lifting the ban on the national flag; he encouraged the flying of the Union flag, certainly throughout Great Britain. I wonder what the official policy of the official Opposition is on flying the flag in Northern Ireland. Would it be helpful to increase the flag-flying days in Northern Ireland, as requested by loyalists and others?

Vernon Coaker: Our position is to try to help facilitate agreement between everyone about what solutions can be found, so that Britishness and Irishness is respected. It is difficult, in a particular circumstance, to say, “This is the solution that can or should be found.” Equality of respect between the different traditions in Northern Ireland is extremely important. Flags are a symbol of that, and all one can hope for is that the discussions and ongoing debate will lead to a conclusion that is acceptable to all communities.

Jim Shannon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the national opinion polls that last year showed that only 21% of nationalists wished to see a united Ireland? This year, the polls say that only 19% of nationalists wish to see a united Ireland. Is that not an indication that their Irishness is diminishing?

Vernon Coaker: I think it is a snapshot of opinion at a particular time. The agreement lays out procedures and processes for opinion to be tested at any time. The reality at the moment is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and the debate in this Chamber reflects that. The priority for people at present is to resolve some of the ongoing challenges that remain, and to see what more can be done with respect to decisions made here about jobs, growth and investment in all communities in Northern Ireland. I think that people would see that as their priority, whether they consider themselves to be British or Irish.
	There is a worry that, in both loyalist and republican areas, there are elements who want to take us back to the bad old days, and that they might be gaining a foothold. The message that the whole House sends out is that they will not succeed.
	With the marching season already upon us, I want to make it clear that there is no justification for riots or attacks on the police. The rule of law, including the decisions of the Parades Commission, must be respected and upheld. The peace process shows that, however difficult, in the end dialogue works, so I encourage everyone who wants a peaceful summer in Northern Ireland to talk as neighbours, not enemies, in a spirit of understanding and to find a way forward on contentious issues, such as flags and parades. Like the Secretary of State and the Minister, I would like to do what I can to help facilitate those discussions.
	These are difficult economic times. On the economy and welfare, the Government’s policies, decided here, have an impact in every community in Northern Ireland. Last week’s figures showed unemployment in Northern Ireland at a record high of 8.4%, with almost one in four young people out of work, while 20,000 families with children have lost out because of changes to tax credits. Earlier this year, the Chartered Institute of Housing estimated that the bedroom tax would affect 32,000 people in Northern Ireland and have a disproportionate impact because the vast majority of social housing stock in Northern Ireland comprised large family homes. There simply are not the smaller properties for tenants to downsize to.
	On corporation tax, we had two years of dither and delay, with the promise of a decision last month, but all the Prime Minister said was that we would have to wait until after the Scottish referendum. Northern Ireland’s economy, like the economy of the rest of the UK, cannot wait until 2014; we need to get moving now. We need a plan for jobs and growth and a plan B for Northern Ireland’s economy to get people, particularly young people and those who have been out of work for a long time, back to work, and to bring investment into Northern Ireland and help small businesses to grow. With proposals for a tax on bank bonuses to tackle unemployment, a temporary cut to VAT to boost demand and the bringing forward of infrastructure projects, we want to support the Executive to get the economy on the right track.
	Big challenges remain, and not just on security and the economy, and the Governments in London and Dublin need to continue to help Northern Ireland to meet them. That includes taking responsibility for dealing with the past. For Northern Ireland to move forward, it must agree a way to deal with the legacy of the troubles, the death of 3,000 people and the injury and trauma of tens of thousands more. We are clear about the need for a comprehensive and inclusive process to deal with the past, at the heart of which should be the victims and survivors.

David Simpson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Parades Commission earlier. He will be aware that some of us believe that the commission is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Surely it is time we had a clean sheet of paper to consider some other process for dealing with the
	parades issue. It is a vital part of Unionist culture, and we need to address it, otherwise we could be in for a difficult summer.

Vernon Coaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Of course, if the Executive and the parties in Northern Ireland have an alternative to the Parades Commission that they feel would better facilitate parading and deal with some of the issues, that would be a matter for discussion and change, but until such a time, the commission’s decisions are the law of the land, and as such they need to be adhered to. I understand his point—people often make it to me—but at the moment its decisions are the law of the land. It determines the routes and some of the conditions for parading, and we need to adhere to them. If we need an alternative, people must come forward with proposals, but until then, the commission makes the decisions. I know he agrees that it is crucial that the police do not make those decisions. If the current situation is unacceptable and people feel the need for change, it is incumbent on everyone to consider what that change would be.

Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend rightly talks about healing the past. Might that be helped by people such as the Deputy First Minister and other Northern Ireland Ministers with a history of involvement in the IRA being honest and admitting what they did, rather than always trying to imply that they were totally innocent of the terrible tragedies and lost lives over a long period?

Vernon Coaker: We need a process for addressing all the matters that arise, but at the moment those points are made in a vacuum. We need an overarching process for debating these issues. My hon. Friend obviously knows Northern Ireland well. When I meet victims from all parts of Northern Ireland and from all sides of the community, I am struck by the need to find a better way of dealing with people’s sense of grief and loss, whether in respect of the Ballymurphy families, the Kingsmill families or whoever. There is no quick solution, but a process for discussing how that might be done would be an important step forward.
	There is no consensus about what that process should look like, but we have to get people talking and to keep them talking until we find a way forward. I believe that change comes from the bottom up. Hon. Members know of the huge amount of work being done at a grass-roots level, on the ground in communities, to bring people together and help build the shared future we all want. Much of that work is unsung, but it is making a huge difference. I have met individuals and organisations doing important work in difficult circumstances. These people have shown vision and commitment to the community. I have seen the work they do, whether on shared education, sport for all, providing skills and training for young people or giving a voice to pensioners. We should all redouble our efforts to promote and support this crucial work.
	Huge progress has been made in Northern Ireland, but we cannot, and must not, be complacent. Northern Ireland is unrecognisable from the place it was, but challenges remain, and we must overcome them by pulling together. That means the Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, business, communities and all those who want to build a better Northern Ireland. We cannot just wish for a better future; we have to work for it.

Lady Hermon: I would like to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s words about dealing with the past. I think he referred to a comprehensive and inclusive process to deal with the past. Will he spell out what that might involve, other than talking to one another, cross-community football matches or whatever? Does he wish to see another commission like the recent Eames-Bradley commission? What exactly is “comprehensive” and “inclusive”?

Vernon Coaker: It might be something along the lines that Eames-Bradley suggested; what I am saying is that we have to bring people together to talk about this in the first place, but at the moment I think there is reluctance on the part of the Government to do that. I remember a debate in which the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) said that the Northern Ireland Assembly had asked the then Secretary of State to facilitate talks and bring everyone together to see how a comprehensive and inclusive process might work. People get cynical about having more talks, but given the absence of agreement and consensus, and the fact that there are differing views about what should be done, the very least we can do is to bring people together, even if—I will be honest with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—there is no guarantee that that will succeed. To start to talk about that—to ask how we deal with it, whether elements of Eames-Bradley could have worked, whether other elements could work and what a comprehensive process means, and to include all representatives in Northern Ireland in that process—is to start saying what we can do to address the issue. That is the role that the UK Government could play in trying to facilitate the process that the hon. Lady describes.
	The values that were held throughout the peace process are as relevant today as they ever were—the commitment to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of relationships in Northern Ireland, between north and south, and between these islands; the acknowledgement that the tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering, and that those who have died or been injured and their families must never be forgotten; the acceptance that only democratic and peaceful methods can be used to resolve political differences; and, most fundamentally, an understanding that differences still exist between competing, equally legitimate political aspirations, but that we must strive in every practical way towards peace and reconciliation. The Government at Westminster must rededicate themselves to those values, working with the Executive and the Irish Government to fulfil their obligations to help to keep Northern Ireland moving forward. There is still work to be done. Let us do it together, mark the progress, meet the challenges and strive to build peace, progress and prosperity in every community in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on choosing Northern Ireland for today’s debate. Those on the Opposition Front Bench have provided us with a welcome opportunity to consider some hugely important matters in Northern Ireland.
	Let me start by paying tribute to the courage and dedication of those on all sides who are responsible for delivering the huge progress we have seen in Northern Ireland over the past two decades. That includes successive UK Governments, our partners in the Irish and US Administrations and, of course, the political leadership in Northern Ireland. They all deserve our sincere thanks. Delivering the peace settlement was greatly assisted by the bipartisan attitude that is generally taken in this House towards matters such as security and constitutional and institutional affairs in Northern Ireland. I very much welcome the continuation of that approach from the shadow Secretary of State.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, the bedrock of the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland is provided by the agreement signed on 10 April, 15 years ago. Whether we call it the Belfast agreement or the Good Friday agreement, there can be no doubt that it has transformed life in Northern Ireland, alongside its successor agreements, made at St Andrews in 2006 and Hillsborough in 2010. None of those agreements would have happened without the Downing Street declaration, made 20 years ago by John Major and Albert Reynolds, which started the peace process in earnest.
	I agree that we in this House must never, ever take the peace settlement for granted. It will always be important to keep reminding ourselves of the many ways in which the agreements have improved life for people in Northern Ireland and transformed it as a place to live. For example, the agreements secured the constitutional position of Northern Ireland on the basis of consent, meaning that it will never cease to be a part of the United Kingdom unless a majority decides otherwise. That is something that we warmly welcome as a Government who support the Union and believe that all parts of our United Kingdom are stronger together, weaker apart. The agreements also mean that the territorial claim to sovereignty in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution has now gone.
	After years of direct rule from Westminster, we now have an inclusive, devolved Administration working hard for the people of Northern Ireland. Delivery of key public services is firmly in devolved hands, and since the St Andrews agreement, all the main parties are signed up to support for the police and the rule of law. The rights and identities of all parts of the community are fully protected, whether they choose to define themselves as British, Irish or both. There are accountable institutions to deliver practical co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and relations between the UK and the Republic of Ireland have never been better. Of course, the greatest achievement of all was the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons and the end of the terrorist campaigns that tragically saw 3,500 lives lost. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling that there can be no doubt about the significant challenges that still need to be overcome in security, the economy, and addressing sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: Before the right hon. Lady moves on, will she take a brief opportunity to put it on record in this House that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have responsibility under the legislation to trigger a border poll, if there were a need for that, but that, no matter how provoked by the leader of Sinn
	Fein, she has absolutely no intention of triggering a border poll in Northern Ireland for the foreseeable and long future?

Theresa Villiers: I can confirm, as I have said a number of times over recent months, that I have no plans to call a border poll. The conditions that require a border poll to take place, as set down in the Belfast agreement, are certainly not present; therefore, I simply do not think it would be a constructive thing to do. Indeed, I feel it would distract from the other big challenges for Northern Ireland, which we are discussing today.

Laurence Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a recent meeting of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which I co-chair, the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, also said those very things?

Theresa Villiers: There is a huge amount of common ground between the UK Government and the Irish Government in our strong support for the devolved settlement and the great progress that it has brought to Northern Ireland, so I am delighted to hear that the Taoiseach expressed similar views to those that I have just expressed on a border poll.
	This Government strongly believe that we cannot stand still if all the promises and hopes of the agreements are to be properly fulfilled, so we need to address the three challenges that I have set out. Let me turn first to security. As the House will be aware, the threat level from terrorism in Northern Ireland is assessed as severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely. There are still terrorist groups that continue to defy the will of the overwhelming majority of people, north and south, who voted for Northern Ireland’s future to be determined by democracy and consent. As the hon. Member for Gedling said, the terrorists are small in number and have very little popular support, but they have capability and lethal intent, as we saw with the cowardly and horrific murder of prison officer David Black last year.
	I, too, would like to thank the brave men and women of the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland for all the work they do to keep the whole community safe from harm. The PSNI is relentless in its efforts to stop terrorist attacks and put those responsible for them behind bars where they belong. Just one of a number of recent PSNI successes was the interception of a van carrying four mortar bombs bound for Londonderry. If it had got through, it could have led to an horrific attack. The levels of co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda Siochana are unprecedented. That co-operation is saving lives. I thank the Irish Government for making it possible.
	For our part, on coming to power we endorsed an additional £45 million for the PSNI, to help to address the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. Our 2010 national security strategy made tackling terrorism in Northern Ireland a tier one priority, progress on which is regularly discussed at the very highest levels of Government. In 2011, in response to a request from the Chief Constable, we provided an additional £200 million to tackle the terrorist threat. The shadow Secretary of State asked how the funding would be phased over the years. I think I can provide him with some reassurance on that. As a significant proportion of the funding was capital spend designed to provide much-needed equipment—not least the refresh of the PSNI Land Rover fleet—more will
	inevitably get spent towards the beginning of the period than at the end. From my regular discussions with the Chief Constable, I have no doubt that the extra resource has helped significantly, and I will continue to give the PSNI my fullest possible backing.
	The hon. Member for Gedling rightly emphasised the crucial importance of the rule of law, now that we are back into another marching season. So far, the events have gone off well and largely peacefully, which is welcome, but it is always important to reiterate from the Dispatch Box—and indeed from both sides of the House—that Parades Commission decisions must be complied with. There are real dangers for Northern Ireland in any recurrence of the disorder that has too often marred the marching seasons in years past. Such disorder damages Northern Ireland’s image abroad, which makes it harder to build much-needed prosperity.

Paul Goggins: I endorse entirely the Secretary of State’s comments about the parades that will take place over the next weeks and months. Will she take this opportunity to set out for the House her approach to parading? The Hillsborough Castle agreement incorporates a time scale and a process for the transfer of responsibility for parading from the UK Government to Northern Ireland. We know, however, that that process has stalled, and there are no signs of it being restarted, so far as I can see. This is a continuing area of concern, and I would be grateful if she could tell the House what she intends to do to ensure that the issue is resolved once and for all.

Theresa Villiers: I have had a series of meetings with those involved in parading, including the Parades Commission, the PSNI, and the Loyal Orders, to hear their views on the prospects for and the risks associated with this season’s parades and marches. It is important for the local parties to engage with one another on this issue, and my understanding is that there is an appetite for that to happen. Should the local parties reach consensus on a way to devolve decisions on parading to a new institution or body, the UK Government would of course consider the matter carefully. As the right hon. Gentleman points out, it has always been envisaged, by the previous Government and by this one, that we could move to a devolved solution. We are open-minded and willing to listen to proposals for such a solution from the Northern Ireland political parties, but until such time as the matter is settled, it is vital that the Parades Commission should be supported and that its decisions should be obeyed.

David Hanson: What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure the passing of a legislative consent motion on the Crime and Courts Bill, which will affect the ability of the National Crime Agency to work in Northern Ireland, and the ability of the new proceeds of crime provisions to operate there? What progress is she making on that? We discussed in some detail during our deliberations on the Crime and Courts Bill the fact that, at the moment, there is a big hole in that area, and I would welcome a time scale for the action that she is taking to ensure that the loophole is closed.

Theresa Villiers: It is certainly a great disappointment that the legislative consent motion has not been adopted by the Northern Ireland Executive. I understand that
	policing matters are hugely sensitive in Northern Ireland, for all sorts of historical reasons, but I am concerned that the abilities and the international reach of the National Crime Agency will not be available to the PSNI. Discussions are continuing on whether it will be possible to persuade the Northern Ireland Executive to provide a legislative consent motion in the future.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the question of the proceeds of crime, a matter currently dealt with by the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It would be unfortunate if such work in Northern Ireland were not taken over by another body. If it is not taken over by the NCA, it would be a matter for the PSNI and the Northern Ireland Executive to consider developing an alternative capability. Discussions are continuing, and I have discussed the matter with David Ford on a number of occasions. He has done an excellent job on trying to build consensus for this change, and we will continue to support him on that. The Home Secretary also takes a close interest in this matter, and she is considering how the NCA will operate in relation to matters that are still the responsibility of Her Majesty’s Government, including UK border matters and matters relating to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
	The Government’s first duty in Northern Ireland is to keep people safe, and it is one that we will not shirk. I fully recognise, however, that terrorism will not be brought to an end by security means alone. As well as exercising continuing vigilance on security measures, we need to make progress on our other objectives—on the economy and on addressing sectarian division—if we are to address the problems on which paramilitaries will always try to feed.
	I should like to provide some reassurance to hon. Members on the economic points that have been raised today. On taking office, this Government faced the largest deficit in the G20 and the largest in the UK’s peacetime history. In three years, we have cut that deficit by a third, and more than 1.25 million new jobs have been created in the private sector. In Northern Ireland, Labour left us with an economy that was heavily dependent on public spending—even more so than at the time of the Belfast agreement in 1998. Some studies have suggested that public spending accounts for as much as three quarters of gross domestic product in Northern Ireland. Of course I understand the historical reasons that have contributed to that, but it is unsustainable in the longer term. We simply cannot go on as we are.
	Under the devolution settlement, many policy areas on the economy and unemployment fall within the Executive’s remit, and I warmly welcome the work that they have done on crucial economic matters, including their great success in attracting inward investment.

Ian Paisley Jnr: There are many things that the Government can take credit for, but the biggest disappointment for anyone in the business community is their failure to take a decision on corporation tax. That failure has been a knockout blow; it is sad, and it reflects a lack of urgency to move forward for the business community.

Theresa Villiers: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Government are planning to reduce corporation tax across the UK economy. The Prime Minister has also set a clear pathway to a decision
	on whether corporation tax decisions could be devolved to Northern Ireland. The reality is that significant technical issues need to be resolved before a decision can be taken on the principle of whether to devolve the power. There are also wider constitutional issues to be considered in the context of the referendum on Scottish separation.
	Significant economic responsibilities are retained by Westminster, and I am working with the Northern Ireland Executive on our shared objective of rebalancing the economy by boosting the private sector and pursuing a strongly pro-enterprise agenda. That is why we are cutting corporation tax from 28% under Labour to just 20% by 2015—the lowest rate in the G7 and joint lowest in the G20. The Prime Minister has made it clear that a decision on whether to devolve the setting of corporation tax rates to the Northern Ireland Assembly will be made in the autumn of next year.
	Our deficit reduction programme has helped to keep interest rates at record lows, helping businesses and households across Northern Ireland, and our new employment allowance will see national insurance cut for 25,000 Northern Ireland businesses, with 10,000 small and medium-sized enterprises paying no tax on jobs at all. This will provide better help for business than Labour’s one-off national insurance tax break.
	We have exempted Northern Ireland electricity generators from the carbon price floor, to provide a level playing field with the Republic. That was a key ask from the Northern Ireland business community, as well as from the Executive. We have also devolved long-haul air passenger duty to help to save our direct air link with the United States, again at the direct request of the Northern Ireland Executive.

David Simpson: The Secretary of State will know that her predecessor made a big play for enterprise zones in Northern Ireland. Is that still part of the coalition’s plan?

Theresa Villiers: We certainly believe that enterprise zones such as those being established in England, Wales and Scotland can play a positive part in boosting the private sector and in job creation. Our conversation with the Executive on a fresh economic package to provide additional help for Northern Ireland includes looking again at enterprise zones, to see whether we can make them attractive to the Executive.
	Access to the £2.1 billion Aerospace Technology Institute will strengthen Northern Ireland’s reputation as a centre of excellence in aerospace. Also, when I met representatives of HBO in New York recently, I heard at first hand that the Chancellor’s tax relief for high-end TV production was crucial to delivering HBO’s plans to film a fourth series of “Game of Thrones” in Belfast, with all the job opportunities that that will provide.
	The Budget gave the Executive an extra £94 million of capital spending, bringing to £900 million the total additional funding provided to Stormont since the last spending review. The Prime Minister announced in March that Northern Ireland would receive an extra €181 million of EU structural funds above what would have been the case if the Government had stuck to the European Commission’s recommended formula. The size of the block grant for Northern Ireland means that public spending per head continues to be 20% higher than the UK average.
	We are delivering a £700 tax cut for over 600,000 working people in Northern Ireland, and taking 75,000 of the lowest paid out of income tax altogether. We have dealt with the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society and ensured that smaller, more vulnerable savers got most or all of their money back. Our welfare reforms, bitterly opposed by the Labour party, will ensure that work always pays and that people cannot take home more in benefits than the typical family earns by going out to work. These are the measures of a Government who are on the side of those who want to work hard and get on in life.
	As for the comments of the hon. Member for Gedling on the spare room subsidy, I recognise how sensitive this issue is, particularly for Northern Ireland where so much social housing is still segregated. The reform we are making brings the social rented sector into line with the rules that the previous Government introduced for the private rented sector. We owe it to all people on housing waiting lists or living in overcrowded accommodation to use our social housing stock as efficiently as possible. A £3.4 million fund has been set up to help in hard cases, which has been doubled by Nelson McCausland over the spending review period. Discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive are continuing on whether they might fund a different approach on the spare room subsidy—at least until the Northern Ireland housing stock has more one and two-bedroom homes.

Naomi Long: I thank the Secretary of State for her remarks, but as she is aware, the housing stock does need to transform dramatically. The cost differential between building one and two-bedroom properties and three-bedroom properties is negligible, but we end up with a less flexible housing stock as a result. Has the impact of this measure been properly thought through, particularly in respect of elevating the cost of one and two-bedroom properties through increasing demand, while not reducing the cost of purchasing those properties in comparison with three-bedroom houses?

Theresa Villiers: These matters are being thoroughly discussed between Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive and those in the Department for Work and Pensions, which remains anxious about and open to finding a solution that will work for the Executive.

Margaret Ritchie: Will the Secretary of State inform us about ongoing discussions between the Minister for Social Development in the Northern Ireland Executive and appropriate Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions on the issue of getting further flexibility to enable the people of Northern Ireland to deal with these cuts, which are the consequence of welfare reform?

Theresa Villiers: Those discussions are ongoing, and I am confident of a positive outcome from them. The hon. Lady will appreciate that a number of flexibilities have already been obtained from the DWP by Nelson McCausland.

Tom Greatrex: The Secretary of State is explaining the depth of the discussions that are happening, and I am sure
	that she has been greatly involved in them as they affect Northern Ireland. Will she explain exactly how many one-bed properties are available in Northern Ireland’s social housing stock?

Theresa Villiers: I do not have the figure to hand, but this very important issue is being carefully considered in the discussions between the Northern Ireland Executive and the DWP.

Lady Hermon: rose—

Theresa Villiers: I will take one more intervention, but then I want to make some progress.

Lady Hermon: The right hon. Lady will be relieved to know that I am not going to ask her about the bedroom tax, but I do want to take her back to the reference she made to the Presbyterian Mutual Society. It is absolutely right to put on the record the gratitude felt by PMS savers, particularly those saving up to £20,000. The Secretary of State’s immediate predecessor, and indeed the Prime Minister, did a wonderful job on the repayments, but that being the case, I am bewildered, as are many of my constituents, about why she did not make more effort to ensure that the Northern Ireland ombudsman’s report into the PMS fiasco was published in full—only a summary was published. Will she give an undertaking to go back and try to ensure that the ombudsman’s report is published in full?

Theresa Villiers: Obviously, I do not have standing to dictate to the ombudsman what they choose to do with their report, but I am certainly happy to look further into that matter and come back to the hon. Lady about it. I am grateful for her praise of the work done by my predecessor and the Prime Minister.
	We are all, of course, concerned about unemployment in Northern Ireland, as it remains far too high, particularly among young people. It is the case that some parts of the community feel that the peace process has not delivered all they hoped it would, so we want to do more to strengthen the economy and help Northern Ireland in the global race for investment and jobs. That is why the Prime Minister decided to bring the G8 summit to County Fermanagh in June. I am grateful for the support for that decision expressed by the hon. Member for Gedling, both in the past and today. This provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to market Northern Ireland as a great place to visit and to do business with. I am working with the Executive to make the most of all the opportunities that that brings us.
	I agree that, despite the progress that has been made over the years, it cannot be right that there are still some deep-seated divisions in parts of Northern Ireland society. As I go round Northern Ireland, I see many excellent examples of initiatives designed to bring people together, such as the Jethro centre in Lurgan, Forthspring in West Belfast, and Intercomm in North Belfast. As the flags-related disorder demonstrated, however, more needs to be done to build mutual understanding and mutual trust across sectarian divides.
	Policy responsibilities for community relations are devolved, but this Government have always been keen to work with the Executive and to support them in moving things forward. During his visits to Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister highlighted the importance he places on this issue.
	Following the meeting with the Prime Minister and the First and Deputy First Ministers in March, we are working with the Executive on a substantial new economic package, alongside measures that we hope will build a more cohesive and stable society.
	The package is in addition to the support Northern Ireland already receives from the UK Government. The Government are examining ideas on making enterprise zones more attractive, helping the Executive to take forward infrastructure projects, improving access to bank finance, and various other measures. Meanwhile, the Executive have the opportunity to use their devolved responsibilities to develop economic and social measures, including work on a shared future which we are all committed to delivering.
	Put simply, this is a two-way street: the greater the Executive’s ambition, the more the Government will be able to do to support and help them. This is about partnership and working together on our shared goals, and I am optimistic about the chances of achieving a good outcome for Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Gedling spoke about dealing with the past.

Nigel Dodds: Before the right hon. Lady leaves the point about the provision of extra help for Northern Ireland, she will be aware that a different interpretation was put on her remarks, not least by people in the Belfast Telegraph who described what she said as tantamount to blackmail. They feared that money might be withheld unless politicians in Stormont made a certain amount of progress, as viewed by the Government. Will she clarify exactly what she means in her approach to this matter? Clearly, what she has enunciated today is certainly a more constructive way of putting it, but can she rule out the suggestion or fear among many that this money will be held as a form of blackmail to get the Executive to do certain things?

Theresa Villiers: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this package is about working together. The shared objective of the Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government is to rebalance the economy and to address sectarian divisions, and we feel that we have a good opportunity to work together on those crucial issues. As I have said, the package is about new measures and new ways of supporting the Northern Ireland economy, rather than any subtraction from the existing support for Northern Ireland.
	As the hon. Member for Gedling will appreciate, this is no easy issue. His party’s Government tried to resolve it, but were unable to do so, because they could not build enough support for the legislation that they were considering. It is important to accept that the UK Government do not own the past, and that progress cannot be made solely at their behest. Progress requires the building of consensus between different sides and different parties in Northern Ireland. We are certainly willing to play our part in efforts to deal with these matters, as was demonstrated by the Prime Minister’s response to the Bloody Sunday report and the de Silva review, but we do not believe that singling out a few more cases for costly open-ended inquiries is the right way forward.
	I pay tribute to the work that is being done by many groups and organisations in Northern Ireland to help people understand the past and give them a chance to tell their stories. Yesterday I visited the University of Ulster to learn more about its CAIN-ARK network, a resource shared with Queen’s University Belfast which has had 64 million page views and which contains a huge amount of material on the troubles. I encourage anyone who wants to understand Northern Ireland’s past to visit the website.
	Fifteen years ago, the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland made an historic choice: they decided that their future would be determined by democracy and not by violence. The Belfast agreement and its successors have given us a platform on which to build a new, confident, inclusive and modern Northern Ireland whose best days lie ahead. There is no doubt that we have come a long way—in many respects, Ireland is unrecognisable in comparison with the place that it was two decades ago when John Major made the Downing Street declaration—but much remains to be done to heal long-standing divisions in Northern Ireland society. In a number of ways, the peace process is still “work in progress”.
	No one should doubt the determination of the UK Government to move forward, working in partnership with both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government, in our efforts to create a peaceful, stable and prosperous Northern Ireland of which all its citizens can be proud.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. The winding-up speeches will begin at 5.15 pm, and 11 Back Benchers have indicated that they wish to take part in the debate. Lengthy contributions will not be met with universal joy by others who wish to contribute, so I ask Members please to be mindful of others when making their own speeches.

Nigel Dodds: It is a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State. I apologise to both the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), and the Secretary of State for having been absent for part of their speeches; I had to give evidence to a Committee upstairs.
	I welcome the debate and thank the hon. Member for Gedling for choosing the subject and for the way in which the motion is worded. I think it right to acknowledge the progress that has been made in recent years, and I trust that the motion will gain the full support and endorsement of Members in all parts of the House.
	Both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State spoke of the enormous progress that has been made, and rightly described the present situation in Northern Ireland as being virtually unrecognisable in comparison with the situation 30 or even 20 years ago. We do not underestimate the violence and the threat that are out there, or the concern that exists among members of society as a whole and among the security forces about the harm that could be inflicted by some of the terrorists who are intent on disrupting society. We bear in mind the terrible murder of David Black, and
	other incidents in which members of the security forces have narrowly escaped injury and death. We know of the fantastic work done by our security forces in daily protecting life and limb, and the interventions and interceptions which, in various instances—almost too numerous to recall here—have thwarted violent attacks by terrorists. We acknowledge the great progress that has been made, and, while we also recognise the challenges that are out there, everyone in society should bear in mind the enormous strides that have been made in terms of political stability.
	It is now taken for granted that the Northern Ireland Assembly will see out its full term, and will see out its next term in full as well. However, not long ago—not 20 years ago but less than five or six years ago—people were predicting that the Assembly would not last four months, let alone four years.
	We opposed the Belfast agreement because of its inherent flaws and the fact that people who were in government were still not supporting the police and the rule of law; they were still with the armed gunmen and we still had no decommissioning. We opposed all that, and I remember the Prime Minister of the day, Tony Blair, telling us it was impossible to get an alternative. But we did get an alternative, and we did so because we insisted that the rule of law had to be paramount, that there had to be support for the police and that both sides of the community had to give their support and consent to the institutions in Northern Ireland. That was the fatal flaw with the Anglo-Irish agreement we debated not long ago in this House and also with the Belfast agreement.
	Thankfully, however, as the opinion polls bear out, in the period since 2006-07, there has been overwhelming support for the Assembly and the institutions, on the basis that everybody is now involved—everybody has given their consent and everybody has been consulted. While it is far from perfect, it has at least gone through that important democratic test. Under the Belfast agreement, the Assembly crashed three or four times, but we have had a period of stability since 2007.
	There is also increased support for the Union, as has been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson). One of the most important and significant developments in recent years has been the increased support for the Union in all sections of the community. Those who describe themselves as British have, of course, always supported the link with the rest of the United Kingdom, but the numbers of those who describe themselves as nationalists and those who now describe themselves as Northern Irish who say they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom or that they would not vote for a united Ireland have also increased very considerably. That, too, is a mark of the progress that has been made.
	Of course people have the absolute right to wish to leave the United Kingdom and join in a different set of arrangements, as long as they pursue those objectives politically and democratically, but what is happening in Northern Ireland is clear evidence that people are increasingly content to work within the parameters of the United Kingdom. Indeed, a recent opinion poll in the Belfast Telegraph showed there was a majority for that in every county in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, a majority among nationalist voters overall. That is extremely significant, and it was unimaginable 20 years ago.

Naomi Long: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those opinion poll findings are the reason why, despite Sinn Fein having launched its campaign for a border poll with great fanfare, we have not heard much about it since?

Nigel Dodds: That is absolutely right and, interestingly, when Sinn Fein voters were polled, a quarter of them also said they would stay in the United Kingdom. So, certainly from our perspective, things are changing in Northern Ireland in a positive and good way.
	We face a number of challenges, however, including some major economic issues. We have heard a lot about them already today. In trying to build the economy, tourism is a key sector, and today is Titanic Belfast’s first anniversary. That is an iconic building, and I take some pride in it because I brought the project to the very first meeting of the Executive when I was Economy Minister in 2007, and we managed to get some substantial financial support for it. People at that stage queried whether it would be a success, but today it can be proved that it has been a success, because in the first year there have been 807,340 visitors, almost half a million of them from outside Northern Ireland and from 128 different countries. That contributed almost £30 million to the economy. It is a fantastic benefit to Belfast and to Northern Ireland as a whole. It is a world-class tourism project and product.
	I recently visited the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre, built under the Northern Ireland Executive, which is attracting lots of visitors, again from outside Northern Ireland, which is the key point because it has added value to the economy. In 2012, the Olympic year, hotel occupancy in Northern Ireland in June was at the same level as that in central London, which is incredible when one thinks about it.

Ian Paisley Jnr: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to put his finger on where visitors are coming from. It is not a marginal outside increase. Apparently, of the million people who have visited the Giant’s Causeway and the Titanic centre this year, 60% are from outside the United Kingdom.

Nigel Dodds: Yes, and these are very important figures, because in the past a lot of tourist attractions were dependent on repeat visitors from within Northern Ireland or from over the border, which is increasingly unsustainable in the long run. But sights of the magnitude of the Giant’s Causeway, the Titanic, St Patrick’s trail and Londonderry and the walls are all great visitor attractions. Londonderry is the UK City of Culture this year. We have the G8 coming to Fermanagh as well, so there are lots of fantastic things happening in Northern Ireland. When we consider what it was like just a generation ago, we can see what can be done when politics works, and we all have a part to play in building on the peace and stability that has underpinned that progress.
	Recently, of course, times have been tough. Despite the economic downturn and recession, we have still been able in Northern Ireland to attract high degrees of foreign direct investment. We are still the second best area in the United Kingdom outside London for attracting such investment, which is a very significant statistic. In the past five years, the Northern Ireland Executive have spent more on infrastructure—roads, schools, hospitals
	and housing—than at any time in Northern Ireland’s history. More jobs than at any time in history have been delivered by the Executive, at a time when we are delivering the lowest local taxes in the whole of the United Kingdom. Peace, stability and opportunity make a real difference to the lives of those who live in Northern Ireland.
	That said, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am conscious of your earlier injunction—I want to say that it is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, that the Government act on corporation tax. While we welcome the moves that were made in terms of the help that the Secretary of State enunciated and the financial backing given to the Executive, and although the Executive have done a considerable amount on business rates and domestic rates and in helping lending to small businesses, and in backing the work of Invest Northern Ireland, there is no doubt, and it is the consensus among the political parties in Northern Ireland, and among business and industry, that what is needed is a game changer. If we are to alleviate high unemployment and reduce dependency on the public sector, something like the devolution of corporation tax is needed to make that happen. Of course, it is important that we retain our 100% regional aid status as far as Europe is concerned.
	As for the political challenges that we faced, very briefly we have come a long way to achieve the stability and durability of the Executive and the Assembly. That must not be underestimated and should never be taken for granted. We all must continue to work hard to make sure that it is not undermined. But there is a case to be made—the people of Northern Ireland on all sides have expressed this many, many times—for reducing the bureaucracy surrounding the Assembly and the Government Departments. We have too many Government Departments with too big an Assembly. Too much is being spent on governing the place.
	I welcome the fact that the review of public administration will reduce the number of councils, streamlining local government. We on the DUP Benches support the reduction in the size of the Assembly, support the reduction in the size of Government and support the idea of introducing an Opposition to the Assembly set-up, but there are other parties in the Assembly that, to varying degrees, do not lend support to that. I hope that, in the coming years, we can look back on this debate and say, “From then on, there was the desire to make devolution, and the Assembly and the Executive, work even better.”
	The issues to do with the shared future, the past and how we can ensure that all sections of our community benefit from peace and stability, are absolutely key. I do not have time to go into all those, but it is incumbent on us all to work together—all the political parties in Northern Ireland, with the Government here—to move these issues forward. They cannot be left in abeyance. It is absolutely critical. I know that in the constituency that I represent, North Belfast, there are many people who, when they consider the impact of welfare reforms, or the economy, or the reductions in the public sector, and the wider political process, do have a sense of grievance. While we acknowledge and address those issues, it is the job of all of us to ensure that the positive is put forward, that we continue the progress of the last
	15 years over the next 15 years, and that we continue to build on the peace and stability that has been created in Northern Ireland.

Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I thank the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for introducing this welcome debate. I strongly approve of the balanced wording of the motion, which recognises how much progress Northern Ireland has made during the last 15 years, while recognising that more work needs to be done. As well as the politicians in this place, it is the local politicians but especially the people of Northern Ireland who have made that progress. Over many years, they have shown enormous resolve in the face of a desperately difficult time. I pay tribute to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland for everything that they have done, and for being so resolute in their determination to come through very difficult times.
	Probably everyone in the House today will remember the deeply difficult times of the 1970s. Last November, I had the rather sad occasion, with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), to visit Enniskillen to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the bomb there. I was in the Republic on 15 August 1998 when the Omagh bomb went off, and I was in the Republic when David Black was murdered, and I remember the revulsion that was felt in the Republic of Ireland at those events. That demonstrates that we stand together with the Taoiseach and the Government of southern Ireland in condemning these acts and in being determined to find a way forward towards greater peace and a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
	I also remember many great things from my regular visits to Northern Ireland over many years now. The hon. Member for Gedling mentioned the wonderful attractions there, including the Giant’s Causeway and the visitors centre there. I am sure the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) welcomes the new golf course that is to be built in that area. At long last, he probably says, but at least it is on its way. For Londonderry to be the city of culture this year is a tremendous accolade. As has been mentioned, the Titanic quarter has been open for a year, and I have had the pleasure of visiting it twice. What a wonderful visit it makes for. The G8 is coming to Northern Ireland. To accommodate all the visitors who have been mentioned, Northern Ireland has some of the best hotels in the world, which perhaps is not recognised or remembered. As well as meeting the people of Northern Ireland, one of the great pleasures of visiting the Province is to stay in its wonderful hotels. There is an awful lot to be proud of and to look forward to in Northern Ireland.
	I have the honour of chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and one of the ways that we think will cement the relative peace that has been attained in Northern Ireland is to try to help the economy and move it to better times. As has been mentioned, the economy throughout the United Kingdom is difficult. It is difficult throughout Europe. It is difficult in various parts of the world. For the record, I for one believe that the Government are on the right track in trying to put the economy right. We are not in a mess because we did not spend enough money, but because the previous Government spent too much money. We cannot get
	away from that. The Government are right to try to rebalance the economy in the way that they are.
	But with specific reference to Northern Ireland, there are one or two issues that we should discuss here today that have been touched upon. I have just complimented the Government, but I will make a mild criticism now. I do not think that it is right to delay the decision on devolving responsibility for setting corporation tax until after the Scottish referendum. I see no relevance at all. In fact, I think that people in Scotland would be somewhat encouraged to vote to remain in the Union if we could demonstrate that there is flexibility to do different things in different parts of the United Kingdom.
	Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with another country, and the circumstances there are different. I certainly congratulate the Government on their reduction in the rate of corporation tax and look forward to the downward trend continuing to 20%, but we must remember that the level of corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland is still only 12.5%. If we want to know the importance of that rate to the Republic of Ireland, we need only look back to the financial difficulties it had a couple of years ago, when this Parliament tried to help. Even with all its difficulties, and despite pressure from the European Union, it stuck to that rate and would not budge, because it knew that it was the best thing it had for attracting inward investment. The Government need to speed up their decision on whether to devolve the rate of corporation tax to the Assembly.
	On air passenger duty, great progress has been made. I hope that the Select Committee was influential—I think that it was—in enabling the rate for long-haul flights from Northern Ireland to be reduced and giving the Assembly responsibility for it. However, a large number of flights to and from Northern Ireland are short-haul, and we feel that more work needs to be done in that regard, because the relatively high percentage of tax for short-haul fares is a disincentive. I know that that applies across the United Kingdom, but Northern Ireland is different, as the only realistic way to travel between to and from Great Britain is by air, so much more thought needs to be put into that.
	The third matter I want to mention in relation to the Northern Ireland economy is laundering and smuggling. Historically, a lot of money has been lost in taxation through laundering and smuggling, particularly of fuel and tobacco. The Select Committee looked at that in great detail and was horrified by a number of things: first, how much money is lost; and secondly, how few custodial sentences are given to criminals who abuse the system to such an extent. It is not a victimless crime, because it is taking money away from hospitals, schools and police forces and from the taxpayers who contribute the money in the first place. The Committee was also concerned about the small progress made on developing technology that would greatly reduce, although not entirely prevent, the amount of fuel that can be smuggled and counterfeited in Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to continue their work and increase the intensity of their talks with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to move towards a better system for eradicating what is a very serious and costly crime.
	I will detain the House no longer, as I am well aware of the number of Members who wish to speak. I look forward to hearing what they have to say. I finish by
	echoing what has been said. I think that all of us in this House are looking to create a Northern Ireland that is far better for the next generation than the era suffered by the past generation.

Alasdair McDonnell: I am pleased and privileged to rise to support the motion, and I do so in the strongest possible terms. I want to thank the Labour party and the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for bringing the motion to the House and, with it, the opportunity not only for myself, but for others, to make comment.
	I am always pleased to note the widespread support across the House for peace, progress and prosperity in Northern Ireland. The 15th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, or the Belfast agreement—whatever we choose to call it—which we celebrated two weeks ago, is a significant milestone in our steady progress away from conflict. I recently had the opportunity to pay tribute in the House to the work done by previous Governments, both Irish and British, in negotiating and signing the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985. For me, that agreement laid the foundation for a sea change in relationships between our two countries. It not only began to fundamentally change relationships between Ireland and Britain, but laid the foundations for the peace process and the Good Friday or Belfast agreement that followed in 1998, which in turn raised opportunities for further positive transformation of the intergovernmental relationships to a whole new level. For so many in both countries, nothing gave better expression to the change and transformation in those relationships than the historic visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to Ireland two years ago.
	We all owe a debt of gratitude to the Prime Ministers of both Ireland and Britain for their commitment to securing peace over the past 30 years, and that gratitude continues to be owed to the current incumbents, Prime Minister David Cameron and Taoiseach Enda Kenny.
	As I look around this Chamber, I see many Members on both sides who have made significant contributions to bring about peace in Northern Ireland and the transformation of the relationship with the Irish Republic.

Jim Shannon: Although many Prime Ministers—from Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—have made a contribution, will the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge the significant contribution made by the United States Government, who have also played a great part?

Alasdair McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman must have been reading my notes over my shoulder—the rules of the House should be amended to prevent Members from copying others—because my next line is that we should also note that we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the United States and the various Administrations in Washington throughout that period.
	Yes, much of the violence has been taken out of the equation in Northern Ireland. Relative peace and increased stability have been welcomed for some years, but we have not yet reached the promised land. Before the current financial crisis there were some green shoots of
	economic recovery, but they have been difficult to sustain. We have not come so far that we can afford any complacency. It is not just a matter of being eternally vigilant against the residual threat presented by those who are, though small in numbers, still dangerous and still wedded to the ways of violence, terrorism and intimidation.
	Although the Good Friday agreement won overwhelming support across the island of Ireland, it was, for many, perhaps, a conditional support that should not be taken lightly or for granted. Although people voted for peace in overwhelming numbers in 1998, they wanted more: they also voted for hope and the right to hope for a much better future. They voted—this is better put in the words of Seamus Heaney—that “hope and history” would “rhyme”. They voted for economic opportunity for their children. They voted for a new dispensation that would tackle the root causes of division and ensure that violence would never again gain a significant foothold in their world or in the politics of Northern Ireland.
	However much our people may differ on politics or on our views of the past, present or future, there is a shared conviction in Northern Ireland that our future must be different from what went before, in that it must be much better. They know that, however difficult it may be, that future has to be a shared future.
	We have had 15 years of congratulating each other that the killing has stopped, but that is not enough any more. We need to move on and get some sense of greater progress. As long as we fail to tackle the underlying causes of the division in Northern Ireland, people will not feel safe and we will not be safe. We need a credible, practical, workable and productive cohesion sharing and integration strategy, and we need it now.
	The return of devolution was such an important goal that many people got impatient with me and colleagues in the SDLP for sharing our anxieties and our concerns and preaching that anxiety at times over the past few years, but now at last that important truth is beginning to be recognised. We note that in the past few weeks the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has found it necessary to state publicly in the strongest terms that the support of the UK Government for our Executive is conditional on progress being made in tackling community division. A couple of days before that the Irish Foreign Minister, Eamon Gilmore, said clearly that our First Minister and Deputy First Minister are mandated by the Good Friday agreement, which put them in office in the first place, to work for reconciliation. The time has come for us to produce some meaningful results.
	We warmly welcome these new tones, this new realism, because it had been missing from the communications between Governments and from the two Governments for some years. We must recognise that the two Governments are the ultimate guarantors of the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement.
	In my mind there is another side to reconciliation, the one that gets too little recognition, and it is this: tackling division is honourable and a good thing in itself, but there is a little more to it. Tackling division is an absolute necessity if we are to have any hope of achieving the prosperity mentioned in the motion. Division carries a direct cost or an absolute cost, but worse still for me, it also carries an opportunity cost. Beyond the challenge
	of tackling division, there is so much unfinished business in the major challenge of building prosperity. We will have difficulty finding the road to prosperity if we do not first find the road to maturity in dealing with flags and parades and the unhealed wounds and scars of the past.

Stephen Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a key way of making that work is to get the right understanding and the programmes for many of the young men and women in both communities who are stuck and cannot find an opportunity and a way out?

Alasdair McDonnell: I agree fully with the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but unfortunately we do not have or have not had until now Government Ministers queuing up to estimate the foreign investment opportunities lost as a result of the disorder in the past few months, but let us in the House not deceive ourselves. There is an economic cost to disruption, violence and disturbance in the streets, and I believe, unfortunately, that the same young men who wrapped themselves in flags are the very ones most likely to pay that cost. They are the ones who will suffer and remain on the margins.
	We have had our peace process and it was good. We now need a prosperity process vigorously backed by the two Governments. It is with regret that I say that although the current Government have done many good things for the economy, too little progress has been made in helping to improve our economy, with unemployment currently at record levels. As others have pointed out, we needed that reduction in corporation tax to give us the rocket boost—for want of a better description—to get us moving economically. The level of youth unemployment in particular is a desperate cause for concern and cannot be isolated from the ongoing social unrest.
	I do not doubt the Government’s stated commitment to rebalancing the economy, but the current economic path laid out for us will not take Northern Ireland to economic stability. We need investment in our economy and we need to create the economic confidence to build growth and develop the private sector. This Government’s attachment to austerity is unlikely to do that for us. On an island of fewer than 6 million people—we have fewer than 2 million in Northern Ireland and fewer than 4 million in the Irish Republic—economic and cross-border partnership is essential. In that context, we need an enduring commitment to serious north-south partnerships and projects such as the Narrow Water bridge and the A5, both of which will open up significant economic opportunities for Northern Ireland. The SDLP will continue to make a positive case for that kind of north-south partnership.
	That is not to sidestep our responsibilities and commitments within the devolved Executive in Northern Ireland. I believe that our highest priority is to tackle division and to do so now.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and to participate in this important debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) made reference to the motion, which has three important principal components that everybody is recognising today. The first is the “significant and positive developments” that have taken place; the second is the challenges that remain; and the third is that this House is committed to the process as we move forward. It is good to see consensus in the Chamber today and I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on bringing this debate to the Floor of the House.
	I have always been reticent about participating in Northern Ireland debates. They could be compared with debates on Europe, in which everybody pulls out their old speech, dusts it off and reads it. I am pleased to see that that is no longer the case with Northern Ireland debates. The hon. Member for Belfast South spoke about raising the bar. In each of these debates, we take stock of what has happened and raise the bar even further. That shows the progress that has been made and is being made.
	Perhaps I am personally marred by my experience of serving in Northern Ireland in the ’90s. My life was spent in uniform, stopping cars and asking for identity documents. I lived on fortified border checkpoints, in the Strabane and Omagh areas, that would now be more associated with Helmand province. It is pleasing that that world no longer exists and that things have moved on.
	I recall two striking events. On one occasion, I went into a newsagents in my uniform and asked for some chewing gum. The lady refused to serve me because she would get a brick through her window if she was seen doing so. On another occasion, I bumped into a friend from university in Strabane while he was coming out of WH Smith. We had not seen each other for a while and he wanted to give me a hug, but he realised that he could not because I was in full uniform. He was a citizen of the area and I was doing my job in uniform, and I thought how mad that dichotomy was within the UK. I am pleased to learn of the advances that have taken place.
	There is a huge irony here. All of us travel abroad occasionally. Wherever we are in the world, if we want to have a good drink, make some new friends and feel at home, we end up going to the Irish bar. How different it was when I served in Northern Ireland. I would go away for two or three months on leave, go to Irish bars and then return back to the situation in Northern Ireland. I found that very strange indeed.
	As we approach the 15th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, I am pleased by how much progress has been made towards a more cohesive and stable society, as more and more powers are devolved. On security, the watch towers have all but gone and the civil police now lead on security matters. The Army is confined to barracks or has withdrawn completely.
	Politically, the Northern Ireland Assembly continues to sit. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said that there had been questions over whether the Assembly would continue to exist. It is there, it works and it is making decisions. It is taking the lead increasingly using its devolved powers. Such is the progress that the UK decided that the G8 summit should take place at Enniskillen.
	Economically, Northern Ireland has of course been affected by the global downturn, as have all parts of the UK. However, it is now seen as a place to invest in. Steps are being taken to renew the economy and to rebalance it away from an over-reliance on the public sector.
	The tourism industry has been mentioned, and I, too, was going to mention Titanic Belfast, not least because there is a synergy with my constituency. Just down the road from my constituency in Southampton is the other museum that recognises what happened with the Titanic. I believe that the Belfast project cost something like £100 million and about 290,000 visitors a year were expected, but it is now exceeding 800,000 visitors a year. That is a fantastic indication of where the tourism industry as a whole is going. Northern Ireland is now seen as a place to invest, and we must also mention the developing aerospace industry.
	Time is short, so I will not repeat the Secretary of State’s comments about the important aspects of the Chancellor’s Budget that will affect Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the country.
	It is clear that more needs to be done, and we must not be complacent about the situation in Northern Ireland. There remains a minority who seek to fan the flames of violence, turn the clock back and undo all the good work. Last year there were about 60 shooting incidents and 30 bomb attacks, along with half a dozen or so paramilitary-style attacks including punishment shootings performed on both sides of the sectarian divide. Of course, compared with more than a decade ago when there were more than 600 shooting and bombing incidents annually, progress has absolutely been made, but that shows that the threat level has to remain at severe.
	We police by consent in this country and expect the majority of the people to obey the law. We do not live in a police state. Long-term peace will prevail only if all of Northern Ireland condemns acts of terrorism and says that they are not the present or future that we want. We want a peaceful and prosperous Northern Ireland. Every time a bomb goes off, it deters another investor. Every time another shooting occurs, it deters another visitor or holidaymaker who was considering going to Northern Ireland. We must never forget that.
	I welcome the debate and the House’s interest in continuing to examine the issues, challenges and opportunities for Northern Ireland. I am pleased to see the cross-party consensus on how we should move forward. I join others in saying that more must be done to ensure that Northern Ireland builds on its recent successes and strengthens democracy so that it does not turn back to the violence that it experienced in the past.

Naomi Long: I, too, welcome the debate. Fifteen years on from the Good Friday agreement, it is timely for us to take the opportunity to reflect on where we are. I thank the shadow Secretary of State and the Labour party for bringing forward the debate. It is evidence of his active interest in Northern Ireland issues, and all of us welcome it. I also thank the Secretary of State for her remarks, and I welcome the fact that throughout what has been a difficult baptism
	into the Northern Ireland political scene, she has handled herself with great grace and courage. I pay tribute to her for that.
	I want to acknowledge at the outset that there has been major progress in Northern Ireland, because we sometimes fail to acknowledge that when we talk about where we are now. Belfast is a transformed city from the one in which I grew up in the ’70s and ’80s, and the contrast between the two cities is stark. I think the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) would recognise that from their own constituencies and the city centre, as I do from mine.
	The Good Friday agreement and the St Andrews agreement have moved us on, and the Assembly has given us an opportunity to manage the political differences and start to deliver on the social and economic issues that matter to our constituents. The right hon. Member for Belfast North is right that we should not take that progress for granted, and nor should we treat it lightly or endanger it. However, while that progress has been delivered at least partially at political level, I do not believe that the reconciliation that was hoped for has been delivered. The hon. Member for Belfast South captured something of my personal frustration about that. We have a rigidly consociational model of democracy in Northern Ireland, which was chosen as a means of managing our divisions, but in many ways it has fixed those divisions and given them a permanence that I believe is unhelpful. It has almost incentivised division, and we need to consider that carefully in how we make progress with the Assembly and its structures.
	Even politically, where the Assembly has delivered, it has created stability but not necessarily dynamism, agility or flexibility. We all hoped that devolution would bring those things. Our people are patient but frustrated that progress has been slow, even on issues of policy that at first glance appear non-contentious. There is built-in inertia in the system, and reform to make it more nimble would be hugely helpful to us all. Such disaffection with the performance of devolution is a risk to something that I value as a committed devolutionist. The Assembly faces a challenge of making itself valuable for more than merely managing political stalemate and division, and for actually delivering results. That is where the focus needs to be.
	Many of us who lived through the troubles will welcome and value at personal level the current peace. A whole generation of young people, however, have not had that experience, and perhaps place less emphasis on the importance of where we are now versus where we used to be. Those without direct, lived experience listen to the history of the troubles, and narratives constructed around that history can endanger it by glamorising or justifying it in terms that allow people who feel they have no stake in current society to think that a return to violence is a way to claim a place in the future. We must deal with such issues in a sensitive way.
	I could say many things but I want to reflect briefly on six points that we must consider if we are to realise the potential not only of the agreement and the Assembly, but of Northern Ireland as a whole. Three of those
	things look backwards and are historical or legacy issues; three look forward—and all are crucial if we are to make progress.
	The past is the best place to start, because we must agree a framework to deal with it. Dealing with the past properly, whether in terms of victims, or of commemorations and memorialisation, is hugely important. Lack of a comprehensive approach allows some to peddle partial and skewed narratives that perpetuate misunderstanding and compound hurt, which brings huge attendant risk. All parties to the agreement—both Governments as well as Northern Ireland parties—must address the matter, and I renew my call to the Secretary of State to look at initiating the all-party talks for which we have previously called.
	The current process with the Historical Enquiries Team and the series of inquiries—albeit of individual significance—risk producing retrospective narratives that do not correlate with the reality we lived through. I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) who said that we need paramilitaries to engage in an honest discussion. If the full truth is to be told, it cannot simply be about story telling; it must be about truth telling and it must be the whole truth.
	Another legacy issue is that of parades. Parades and demonstrations are sensitive and require careful management in a divided society. The right to parade and to free assembly are important and must be protected, but they must be balanced and managed against the right to live free of harassment and intimidation. Current law and legal processes must be respected and supported by all elected representatives. If people have issues with the Parades Commission, the onus is on them to find an agreed alternative process to deal with those issues. That has not been possible to date, but in the interim we must support the rule of law.
	The third issue is flags and emblems—a sensitive issue as I think we all recognise, perhaps more today than ever. There are two distinct issues of policy. One concerns the proper display of national flags and symbols of Government, for example on civic and Government buildings, and the other is the use and abuse of flags on street furniture around the Province to create a chill factor in Northern Ireland that is deeply unwelcome and unhelpful. On the first issue, it is currently a zero-sum game. Flags fly in a number of Unionist-controlled councils all the time, but not at all in nationalist-controlled councils. Such a policy fails to recognise that flags are constitutional symbols, and not just tribal banners. I believe that the review of public administration going through the Assembly provides the opportunity to resolve this matter once and for all, rather than forming 11 new councils that will fight the battle one at a time. We should take that opportunity to develop a solution acceptable to everyone.
	Displays on public property also need to be addressed. That is illegal under the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, and in those terms should not be permitted. If a parent-teacher association sticks a flag or notice on a lamppost it will be fined, but if someone puts on a balaclava or a mask and puts a flag on a lamppost, they will not be fined. There must be some kind of regular approach to dealing with such things. We have suggested regulation rather than an outright ban to give space to those who wish to demonstrate and display emblems and symbols. However, they should do so with consultation
	and assurances in place, and the time of such displays should be limited so that no area becomes permanently marked-out territory.
	Let me move on to the forward-looking issues. First, and most important, is the economy. If we want a prosperous, stable and peaceful future for Northern Ireland, we must deal with sectarianism, because it puts off three key groups on which our economy will depend: indigenous entrepreneurs, who will go elsewhere; inward investors, who will take their investment elsewhere; and tourists who will take their holiday money elsewhere if we do not resolve these issues.
	The economic impact not only of unrest but of ongoing sectarianism on small and medium-sized indigenous local businesses is profound. In the past three to four weeks, I have dealt with businesses in my constituency that have had to wrestle with sectarian workplace disputes and with relocation, because sectarian symbols have dissuaded workers from going to their workplace. Protection rackets run by paramilitary organisations have impacted on businesses, as has the outworking of civil disturbances. Those additional challenges faced by businesses in Northern Ireland are not faced by our competitors. We already have a higher cost base, although I welcome what the Government are doing to reduce it. We are competing on a world stage, and we need to resolve those impediments. That must be done by parties on these Benches, with the assistance of the two Governments.
	Those problems disproportionately affect disadvantaged areas—not because they are more sectarian, but because the expression is more visible in those neighbourhoods. That drives jobs out of those areas and accelerates the brain-drain of talented young people from Northern Ireland. We need to deal with that.
	To deliver outcomes that achieve social justice, we must work with communities honestly and talk about how we can attract investment to disadvantaged and deprived neighbourhoods. That is a problem for inward investors. As other hon. Members have said, we have performed exceptionally well in attracting investment. If the Government devolved corporation tax, we would perform even better—I could not let that go unsaid, and I am sure other hon. Members agree with me. As the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee has indicated, if the Government dealt with air passenger duty, it would be a huge help.
	However, we should bear in mind that the G8 and other high-profile events that help us to promote and build our brand can be undermined instantly if scenes of bomb alerts or civil unrest are broadcast around the world. Inward investment is infected by instability. No one seeking to locate a business in my community comes to talk to me about parades or flags or the past, but they ask, “Is it safe? Is it stable?” All those things feed into the answer to the question.
	The same is true of tourism. The Northern Ireland share of tourism is much lower than that in the Republic of Ireland. The entire differential cannot be accounted for by the weather—in Northern Ireland, by “weather”, we generally mean “rain”. Product has been invested in, for which huge credit is to be given to the Northern Ireland Executive and others. Derry city of culture is a fantastic showcase for the quality and diversity of our artistic and cultural offer. In my constituency, we have Titanic Belfast, a celebration of our maritime heritage. It is a world-class tourist centre that is well visited—it
	celebrates its first anniversary today. There are smaller projects, too. Things such as the Connswater Community Greenway in East Belfast highlights heritage in my constituency as diverse as George Best’s first home, Van Morrison’s old stomping grounds, which are immortalised in his lyrics, and C. S. Lewis’s strong connections to the constituency and that literary heritage. Those are all reasons to stay in East Belfast, to spend in East Belfast and to be part of what we are growing, but with few exceptions people will be wary of travelling to somewhere on holiday that is perceived to be either dangerous or unstable. We need to deal with those issues.
	The second future issue is education. We have massive issues with education. We have some excellent schools, which we should celebrate, but we have a long, under-achieving tail. We need to address that educational disadvantage, because it can breed long-term disengagement and disaffection in communities. People believe not only that they are not getting a fair share in education, but that they are impeded in influencing the community around them. We must consider how we educate our young people—we educate them separately, and the people who teach them are also separated. Only 7% of young people are in integrated settings, but 79% of parents say that that would be their choice. We need to consider how we build on that for future generations.

Kate Hoey: Does the hon. Lady therefore welcome the motion passed in the Assembly yesterday? It was supported by all parties bar one, which I will not name. The motion supported getting rid of the exception in employment law allowing discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. The Assembly was united apart from one party.

Naomi Long: I welcome that measure—it is long overdue. That is one way of opening up the teaching profession. Indeed, it means that students could be opened up to people from different backgrounds from their own, which is important.
	Finally, there is the issue of shared spaces and shared housing. We need to change the language, away from people simply saying that people choose to live segregated lives, either to an acknowledgement that the threat that makes people choose to live that way is no longer there, and that we will set out to prove that that is the case; or to an acknowledgement that the threat is there and real, that separation is safer, and that we will tackle the forces that are posing a threat, whether they are paramilitaries or others. Shared spaces do not have to be neutral, but they do have to be managed. We have to put effort into ensuring that they are available for the people of Northern Ireland. It is not easy to achieve. My colleague David Ford has worked with groups on issues relating to interfaces, and reducing and opening barriers. We have to build confidence, and get statutory support in place.
	Most of the matters I have highlighted are devolved, with the exception of dealing with the past and parades. However, there is a role for the British and Irish Governments as joint custodians of this process, participating in the wider discussion, facilitating and encouraging progress, and supporting the Executive in those areas where agreement can be found.
	In recent months, Northern Ireland has found itself staring back into the abyss. We are faced with the choice of going back there again or doing the work now to
	ensure that that does not happen. We can choose to spend our time poking each other in the eye, or we can try to find a way to treat each other with dignity and respect. I am an optimist. It is not that I think that things are better than they are; I firmly believe that they can be better. That is the challenge to each of us, and we need to show the leadership to fulfil it.

Kate Hoey: I welcome the debate and thank the shadow Secretary of State for ensuring that it took place. Looking back 20 years, I am absolutely delighted by how my party’s policy on Northern Ireland has changed radically. When I was first elected, one was almost shouted down if one said anything that in any way vaguely implied that one might not want a united Ireland. Our policy used to be that we would persuade people that a united Ireland was their best future. That changed under the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and from then things improved. We got the Belfast agreement and, as everyone has said, things have changed so much in Northern Ireland that, as someone who was born and brought up there and still goes back regularly, I cannot help but see the differences and changes, which are mostly for the best.
	I pay tribute to the Prime Minister. “Risk” is the wrong word to use, but he certainly took a big leap by agreeing to have the G8 in Northern Ireland. We do not host the G8 summit that often, so to hold it in a part of the United Kingdom where a lot of people across the world will be saying, “How on earth are we going to go to Northern Ireland?” was a fantastic thing for him to do. I think it will be a wonderful experience for all of those people. It may not be such a wonderful experience for any of our colleagues going in and out of Belfast international airport on 16 and 17 June, as I think there will be a lot of security, but there is security at all G8 summits. I think we have to remind people that it will be no different from the security at any G8 anywhere in the world. I welcome the decision to hold the summit in Northern Ireland very much.
	There is one area in particular that I shall mention towards the end of speech. I will be as brief as possible, because I know that my colleagues from Northern Ireland want to speak. I will deal with only a couple of matters.
	On the flags issue, it was not as if there were thousands and thousands of people on the streets of Belfast demanding that the flag be taken down from Belfast city hall. We know that this was a Sinn Fein agenda—it is what they have always wanted. The sad thing was that they were given that chance by people who perhaps thought that they were working in the interests of uniting people, and all it has done is divide people.
	I am concerned about the Historic Enquiries Team, and hope that the Minister will say something about it. There are real issues that we need to explore: the length of time some of the things are taking and perhaps the way it is being run now. We need to have a detailed look at how that organisation is working. I hope that the Minister will come back to that.
	I want to deal today with a crucial, but non-devolved, matter. Northern Ireland has a fantastic heritage of sport, sporting opportunities and sporting people famous
	all over the world. I need not remind anybody that we have the best golfers in the world or of people such as Mary Peters who have done extremely well at the Olympics over the years. These people have made Northern Ireland known to those involved in sport all over the world. We have some very good young people, yet we are faced with an issue that people do not like to talk about, because they think, “Oh, sport’s not political, so let’s not make it political”. But it is a real issue. In many sports, it is difficult for a young person from a particular community in Northern Ireland who wants to be part of a British team and of the UK ever to compete for a British team, unless they move to England, Wales or Scotland.
	Boxing is one example. There are some boxing clubs—probably not many—where young boxers have no desire to box under the tricolour, but they have to because boxing is organised on an all-Ireland basis. The international boxing community recognises all-Ireland boxing, so if someone wants to box for a British team, they have to join a club in England, Scotland or Wales. The Belfast agreement was supposed to ensure parity and enable people to choose whether they felt more Irish or more British, yet in sport it is very much one way. Swimming is another example. Swimming clubs in Northern Ireland cannot affiliate to the Amateur Swimming Association, even though its general secretary would love to have them. They are not allowed to because they have to affiliate to the Irish swimming association, which does not want clubs affiliated to British swimming.
	It is the same in tennis. A washing machine powder advert once ran a special offer giving people special help in tennis, but Northern Ireland was excluded because it was not seen as part of the British set-up. I will not repeat the story of the Olympics, but a number of colleagues are concerned that before the next Olympics we find a way of not referring to “Team GB”. It ignores Northern Ireland. There were people from Northern Ireland in the British team in several sports. I am not saying that because I consider Northern Ireland to be a part of the United Kingdom, everyone there must be in a British team, but the House has to ensure that the rights and opportunities of young people who feel British are recognised.
	When I was sports Minister, I tried to do something about this matter, but it was even more difficult then because we did not have the agreements. Now we have them, however, there is no reason for the Minister, the Secretary of State or Northern Ireland politicians not to say, “This is wrong.” Every youngster must have the right to choose. Boxing, swimming and tennis clubs should be able to affiliate to British boxing, as well as to Irish boxing, if that is what they want. They might not all want to, but they must have that right. My constituents buy their lottery tickets hoping to help a British team in the Olympics. Some of that money quite rightly helps to fund the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, because it has a team in the Commonwealth games, but some of those youngsters also compete for Ireland against British teams. So we have this ridiculous situation where my constituents are paying for people to have extra training and support to help them win a gold medal instead of a British person.
	I find it upsetting that when people who feel strongly in Northern Ireland raise this matter they are accused almost of being sectarian. It is not sectarian for someone
	to want to be able to compete for the country that is their nationality. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and if someone feels British and they live in Northern Ireland, they should be allowed to do that. I hope that the Minister will refer to that and not just ignore it, as many other Ministers have over the years.
	Let me end by saying that I am delighted at the progress in Northern Ireland, but also adding my concern that, although it is easy to talk about the bad old days and the good days now, it does not take an awful lot to go back to some of the things that happened in the bad old days. We have seen some of those and hon. Members have outlined some of the terrible things that have happened. Devolution now applies to many areas, but we in this Parliament should remember that the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, of which I am a member and which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) chairs so well, needs to keep an eye on things in Northern Ireland. We cannot just say, “It’s all finished; it’s all better.” Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. Members in this House need to remember that and not be fobbed off by the idea that everything in the garden is rosy over there, because it certainly is not.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I inform hon. Members that we have just under 50 minutes left for this debate? There are five Members wishing to catch my eye. If each speaks for nine minutes—nearly 10 minutes each—we should get everybody in comfortably, ready for the shadow Minister and the Minister to wind up.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Thank you very much for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Let me reiterate the thanks to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman and the Secretary of State for the way in which the motion was introduced, as well as the terms in which it was introduced. It was not a eulogy to the past or to one political philosophy. That is a mature way to approach things, because we are all good at trying to explain and justify why we are here and how we got to this point, when in fact our job as politicians and leaders in the community is to explain to people and give them hope, to co-ordinate and concentrate on where we are going to take them and to give them a forward-looking agenda. I am delighted that today’s debate has largely been about forward-looking policies and ideas and identity, which is important.
	There is no doubt about it: Northern Ireland has changed. The legacy we have inherited has changed from when I grew up, when it was mainly a bloody and difficult politics to grow up in, to now, when it is mainly just a difficult politics to grow up and work in. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is absolutely right: there are difficulties and we should not try to brush them under the carpet, but thankfully they are no longer bloody and difficult problems, but largely just difficult problems. That is an important point.
	There have been positive developments. Let me turn briefly to the employment situation in Northern Ireland, which is largely pinned to that in the rest of the United Kingdom, so we are sitting at about 8.5% unemployment. That is slightly higher than the rest of the UK, but it is
	certainly not as high as in the Republic of Ireland, at almost 15%, or the eurozone in general, at 12%, so there is a clear benefit to continuing with the economic link, which shows that we are stronger together than apart. Jobs have been created in the last term of the Assembly; in fact, 10,244 have been created in the life of the Assembly. That is pretty incredible for Northern Ireland, given the disadvantages and problems, which we are well aware of. Indeed, £500 million of investment from overseas has been secured, and although Northern Ireland represents 2% of the UK population, 7% of all foreign direct investment comes to Northern Ireland. Those statistics on their own are encouraging in helping us to grow, develop and find a way forward.
	We are a successful region, but there are obviously difficulties and challenges, and we should look at some of those. It is disappointing that one in four Sinn Fein members still believes that it is okay to murder a Protestant. That is the stark reality—that is what they said last week at their party conference when polled by the Belfast Telegraph—so leadership needs to be shown to bring that community to the point where it is never justifiable to murder for any cause. We need to make that absolutely clear.
	I agree with the sentiments expressed by Micheál Martin, the leader of Fianna Fáil, when he said that a move towards a border poll would be some sort of “half-baked” gimmick. He was absolutely right, and I am glad that the Secretary of State pinned her colours to the mast today and said that she was not going to waste her time on such a poll. It is welcome to be able to clear that matter up and move on.
	The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) was absolutely correct to identify the hard work that our Select Committee is doing on fuel laundering. I know that he has briefed the Secretary of State on that matter, and I urge her and her office seriously to pursue the issues that he has put before them. They are serious issues, and they demonstrate that there is something really rotten at the heart of things. They must be addressed eagerly and with energy, so that we can put those smugglers out of business once and for all. They are stealing money from the pockets of ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland.
	I have already mentioned the issue of corporation tax, and my disappointment that the Government think that a technical matter—namely, Scotland as part of the Union—is preventing us from devolving that power. I really feel that the Government should have addressed this matter much faster. The National Crime Agency has also been mentioned, and it will be disappointing if we do not achieve a level playing field for every citizen of the United Kingdom in that regard. Each of them should be part and parcel of the area in which the NCA deals with the terrible issues such as slavery, prostitution and all the other rackets that go on. It is important that Northern Ireland should have the same standing in that regard.
	I want to draw the House’s attention to a full frontal attack on £16 million-worth of salaries in Northern Ireland. I have waited some time for an opportunity to put this matter on the record, and the Government must address it. They are contemplating plain packaging for cigarettes, and they are now indicating that the proposal might be in the Queen’s Speech in a matter of weeks. We need to be absolutely clear about this. According
	to the response to a freedom of information request, which is in the House of Commons Library, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) was interviewed by Patrick Wintour of
	The Guardian
	on or about 28 February. Five days later, on 5 March, an article appeared in that newspaper indicating that the proposal was going to be in the Queen’s Speech. That drove 2.8% off the stock market value of the shares of a manufacturing company in the United Kingdom. The share price has not yet recovered, despite Ministers’ denials that they are going to introduce such a policy on 8 May.
	The Government have a duty and a responsibility to defend employment in Northern Ireland. They might not like what is being manufactured, but that industry keeps 1,100 people in jobs in Northern Ireland and puts £60 million directly into the wage economy there. More importantly, it supports tens of thousands of other smaller companies including retail shops and other minor businesses in the locality. The Government have a serious responsibility to stop that full frontal attack on business in Northern Ireland and to address this matter once and for all. I hope that they will not put the proposal into the Queen’s Speech, and that instead they will have a serious look at defending our manufacturing industry in the tobacco sector. They will have a serious problem if they do not do so.
	I ask the Minister to ensure that the freedom of information request in the Library is looked at, and to give consideration to an inquiry into whether anyone gained from the drop in share price that occurred in the five days between that interview taking place and the article appearing. Any such inquiry should look into who benefited from that share value drop, as this could be a very serious matter for all those involved in what I think was a deliberate attempt to undermine that business and to adjust share pricing, which has affected business in Northern Ireland.
	I shall turn now to two events that summarise the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland. I had the sad duty, and honour, of accompanying the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) to the 30-year anniversary of the Ballykelly massacre. When I stood with him in that little church and helped to lay the wreath, I remembered how, as a 16-year-old, I had heard about that awful atrocity and witnessed the pictures of what had happened at the Droppin Well discotheque. It was awful, but it was the signature that appeared in most of our lives as teenagers growing up in Ulster during the ’70s and ’80s.
	If we fast forward to last weekend, I spent the day with my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). We toured around our constituencies and visited the Coleraine football club and its liaison officer, Andy Alcorn, and the community liaison team. We looked at 600 young people from all across the region—from Magherafelt, Cookstown, Ballymoney, Ballymena, Coleraine, Bushmills and Ballycastle—who came into the heartland of Coleraine. There they were—whether it be the Magherafelt Celtic team or the Carniny football team from Ballymena—working together, playing soccer together and enjoying sport together, even though they were from a divided community. That signifies the hope of what our future might be, as our children grow
	up in a much more peaceful Ulster than my generation had the chance to do. We therefore have the opportunity to create and to develop the change—not just to hope it happens, but to create it and make sure that it does.

Tom Blenkinsop: When I was growing up, Northern Ireland was in the news on an almost daily basis, with reports of the latest bombing or shooting. It felt like a world away, and most people of my generation watched from England with confusion and trepidation about what was happening in a place from which most of us could claim some ancestry.
	My mother’s grandfather was from County Tyrone. Like many people from Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland he moved to Port Clarence to work as foreman at Bell’s Steel in Middlesbrough, criss-crossing the top of the Transporter bridge on the River Tees every morning and evening to save himself the cost of using the transporter below. It was in Middlesbrough that he met my grandmother. I thus feel a real sense of pride to speak in today’s debate as a Labour MP, as many of the leading lights of the labour and trade union movement came from the diverse and various communities from across the UK and Europe to find work in my area’s blast furnaces, iron stone pits and chemical factories.
	The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has already spoken about the importance we on these Benches place on our relationship with Northern Ireland, and about the attachment many of us feel towards it.
	Important work still needs to be done to drive the peace process forward, and there is a vital role for Westminster to play. Because the Government have a responsibility to work with the Executive and the Irish Government to keep things moving forward in Northern Ireland, we as MPs also have a part to play in that—and not just within the confines of this Chamber.
	The recent heightening of tension in Northern Ireland made me ask what I was doing about what was happening. My assessment is that we should make links with Northern Ireland, and learn and share experiences and practices across a whole range of issues, from health to education, business and the environment. There are many similarities between my own Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency and Northern Ireland, as both have rich rural and industrial conurbations and both have traditional shipbuilding heritages. Unfortunately, too, prior to the 2010 general election, both regions were targeted by the Prime Minister for the hardest public sector cuts.
	Parts of Northern Ireland face similar challenges to those faced by my native region of the north-east. As other hon. Members have said, the Government’s economic policies are affecting the whole of the UK. That is why we have put forward a plan for jobs and growth for the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland. We are an interconnected and interdependent United Kingdom. Unemployment and lack of growth in Northern Ireland can only have damaged my region, and vice-versa. If we are to succeed, we must work together. The economy needs action now; there needs to be a plan B.
	Our five-point plan for jobs and growth would get the economy moving. We would enable the Executive to bring forward long-term investment projects to get people
	back to work and to strengthen our economy for the future. After shedding 5,000 jobs in the last two years, Northern Ireland’s construction industry needs that help. We would give a one-year national insurance tax break to every small firm that takes on extra workers, helping to create jobs and grow the local businesses that make up over 90% of Northern Ireland’s private sector. We have urged the Government to reverse their damaging VAT rise for a temporary period to give immediate help to high streets, struggling families and pensioners in cities, towns and villages across Northern Ireland. Reducing VAT on home improvements, repairs and maintenance to 5% would help to create work for our trained men and women and stop them from having to move away. We need to build skills through apprenticeships and training that will equip our young people for the future.

Mark Lazarowicz: I agree with my hon. Friend that for the construction industry a cut to 5% in the rate of VAT is an ideal way of boosting investment in repairs and maintenance. However, it has been argued, in Northern Ireland as well as in my constituency, that there should be a reduction in VAT, at least temporary, to help the tourism and hospitality industry. I know that not much can happen overnight and that we cannot issue too long a list of demands, but does my hon. Friend agree that this is an important issue for Northern Ireland? It has certainly been raised by my constituents.

Tom Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. A number of Opposition Members have mentioned Northern Ireland’s tourism economy. Northern Ireland has a fantastic record of bringing in foreign direct investment, but it also has a fantastic Province to sell to tourists. That is something of which our nation—the United Kingdom—should take advantage, and a reduction in VAT would certainly help the tourism economy.
	Because we know that young people will be the driving force behind further progress in Northern Ireland, Labour would levy a £2 billion tax in bank bonuses to fund a real jobs guarantee that could help 2,000 young people in Northern Ireland to go back to work. As in my constituency, young people are suffering the most as a result of the Government’s economic policies. They are being let down daily by the Government—let down by failed policy after failed policy. The young people I meet are ambitious for themselves and their communities, but they cannot realise those ambitions unless they are given a chance to learn skills, be trained and find jobs. As we heard from the shadow Secretary of State, no job, no hope and no future are no choices at all.
	We each have a responsibility to go on working hard to keep Northern Ireland high on the agenda. The Government must play their part by helping to get its economy moving, and devising a real plan for jobs and growth.

Margaret Ritchie: I welcome the motion, because I think that the House should remind itself occasionally that the hard-won peace—and political—settlement in Northern Ireland remains very much work in progress, and that, from the perspective of London, there is much more work to be done and more help to be given. I also remind myself that the
	motion gently invites criticism of those who should be making more progress and doing better—perhaps those who lead the Northern Ireland Executive; perhaps the British Government. However, if I offer criticism in my short speech, it is intended to be of the constructive variety, and I hope that I strike, overall, a positive note.
	Northern Ireland has come a long way, from the constant, daily violence of my childhood, to a relative peace and some measure of political stability. However, it is some 15 years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, and while people would have expected little more than that relative peace and some measure of political stability in the first, say, five years, there has been growing frustration about the fact that it is taking for ever for us to see the full promised peace dividend. I am thinking particularly of the economic dividend from peace, namely investment and jobs. I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) saying that we must move from a peace process to a prosperity process. Where is the prosperity process in which the British Government should be engaging?
	Although regionally Northern Ireland has always been a net beneficiary of any Treasury settlement, we here are not the most culpable when it comes to the vital process of economic rebalancing. Although we may have been slow to identify new revenue streams and capital receipts in the north of Ireland, it was the UK Government who reneged on their promise of a £20 billion capital programme which would, in part, have allowed the north to catch up on years of under-investment in productive infrastructure. Perhaps the Minister of State will respond to that point when he winds up.
	Again, it was the UK Government who, having held out the prospect, reneged on the question of devolving corporation tax-varying powers to the Northern Ireland Executive, despite the fact that all five Government parties were in favour of it and were prepared to pay for it. I am sure all Northern Ireland Members would welcome an update on that potential economic dividend. Despite some local criticism, our Executive Ministers have put a lot of effort into visiting major, current and emerging economic powers in order to win jobs and investment for Northern Ireland, and they have done so against the challenge of worldwide economic recession, so if I had to apportion responsibility for the Northern Ireland economy failing to meet the expectations of our people, I would not start by blaming the Northern Ireland Executive. However, I do believe significant economic progress is possible—but that must be accompanied by greater political progress.
	The Secretary of State herself has linked further economic support, through an economic package and enterprise zones, to greater progress toward a shared future. Although I hesitate to see that as a necessary connection, I agree that we have not done enough in that area. The recent report from the Community Relations Council highlighted that one of the failures of the Northern Ireland Executive was in not doing enough on a policy for cohesion, sharing and integration. We are still a divided society, and we must move towards living together, whether through shared housing or shared neighbourhoods.
	There is no alternative to a shared future. Our system of power sharing was not designed so that Unionist Ministers would cater for Unionist citizens and nationalist Ministers would look after nationalists. It was created
	so that we would share Government in the north of Ireland and act in the interests of everyone. That was the promise and potential of the good Friday agreement, and in many ways it has not been lived up to. While I have commended the Northern Ireland Executive, and in particular the First and Deputy First Ministers, on the genuine efforts they have made to attract investment, they have not distinguished themselves in other areas. On the flags issue, I would hope the DUP could provide the kind of leadership that it has not provided so far, and on the issue of parading, the Unionist forum is not the answer.
	I have a question for the Minister—who represents a Government who are co-guarantor with the Irish Government of the Good Friday agreement—about north-south institutions. The Northern Ireland Executive, and in particular the Department of Finance and Personnel, which is led by the DUP, have again dragged their feet over a central project. The Narrow Water bridge project has enormous economic potential, and not only for my constituency where it will be situated. It will be a bridge between Warrenpoint in County Down and Cooley in County Louth, but it will create enormous investment, trade and tourism opportunities for all of the island of Ireland, and especially Northern Ireland. Let us grasp this opportunity and make everybody realise it presents a win-win opportunity.
	Sinn Fein cannot have an à la carte approach to supporting the police. It needs to support the police even when they act against criminal suspects who happen to be republicans.
	What we need from the First and Deputy First Ministers is real leadership around areas of division. We cannot work effectively at the heart of Government yet be attacking the very institutions—the PSNI, the Parades Commission—that have been set up to deal collectively, and fairly, with divisive issues.
	My party above all still retains its belief in the promise and potential of the Good Friday agreement, and we remain committed to a shared future where all the parties do their very best to deliver for all the people of the north, in every area of Government. There is no doubt that devolution needs to work better for all the people of Northern Ireland, and I believe there is a will to do that, so let everybody—all the parties and both Governments—get on with it. I can say that my party is committed to meeting that challenge. I hope others are, too.

Jim Shannon: Madam Deputy Speaker, how nice it is to see you back in your position again after your time away. We look forward to seeing much more of you in the Chamber.
	As a young man growing up during the troubles, I saw many sides to Northern Ireland. I saw evil people carrying out horrific atrocities. I saw fatherless children and childless parents who had seen loved ones so brutally taken from them. I saw fear in people’s faces and sorrow in their eyes. To sum it up, I too often saw despair. However, on the opposite side of that same coin, I saw the strength of the local communities. I saw the dedication and the sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, of the Ulster Defence Regiment, of the British Army, in
	defending and upholding right. I saw the togetherness that the troubles often brought, and I saw a hope that we could and would survive this.
	Now, many years later, we have come through the troubles, not only surviving but thriving. We are trying to move forward while never forgetting our past, and I feel that this is being achieved. Ulster is in a different place today than it has been in the past. Indeed, the recent Northern Ireland life and times survey shows that only 21% of nationalists show a desire to have a united Ireland. Indeed, in no single group do even a quarter of people want to be part of a united Ireland. It is abundantly clear that there is little desire to see the “green dream” become a reality, and that is good news.
	When we take a look at the Irish economy and the fact that, despite our recession, we are in an infinitely preferable situation, it is no wonder that people are stating that the way forward is not to unite with the Republic but to stay within the Union in one way or another. We have listened to calls for border polls, and today the Secretary of State has replied very clearly in relation to the border poll: it is unnecessary, it is costly and it should not happen. That said, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done within the infrastructure, within the business sector, and within communities in Northern Ireland. Those are the three areas that I wish to focus on.
	Back home, the Minister for Regional Development is well aware of the needs of my Strangford constituency in relation to roads and infrastructure. Clearly, we need infrastructure. There would not be a day or a week that passes when my staff and myself are not in touch with my local Department for Regional Development office to make complaints about the roads, whether about potholes, claims, or accidents caused by slippery roads. Clearly, my constituency is like others across the whole of Northern Ireland. Just to give a figure, we spend £2,800 per kilometre on road maintenance in Northern Ireland, whereas £12,000 per kilometre is spent in England, and in Wales £7,500. We need improvement in our roads infrastructure, which will attract investment and yield a return in the long run.
	Belfast is slowly beginning to attract more outward investment, and it is my belief that we can build on that and bring it into my constituency. The links to the mainland from Belfast are tremendous, with regular flights, boats, and the links that mean anywhere in the Province can be reached within approximately two hours. That is significantly important when it comes to air travel, and to making us accessible for investment and for infrastructure. We have educated young people, eager to work, and those businesses that make the decision to come never regret it.

William McCrea: We have the international airport in my constituency, and yet we do not have a link to the major hub of Heathrow. Surely that must be put right, and it should be treated as a matter of urgency.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, and I wholeheartedly agree with him that it is something that must be put right. I understand that he and others are working to address that issue.
	Our team at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment work hard to promote new business investment and also support our home-grown businesses.
	In my constituency we have some of the foremost manufacturing in the world for aerospace, which has been mentioned, and we have room for more. We have John Huddleston Engineering, now Magellan, which has a great potential for Northern Ireland. There are extra jobs, and apprenticeships and opportunity, and that is good news.
	Small businesses employ 65% of the private sector work force in Northern Ireland, compared with 62% in Wales, 48% in Scotland and 46% in England. In Northern Ireland small businesses account for a greater proportion of turnover than in the UK as a whole—60% of all private sector turnover in Northern Ireland, as against 46% in Wales, 40% in Scotland and 36% in England, which takes a poor fourth place. Those statistics show just how essential those businesses are to the economy, and those businesses are playing their part for economic recovery.
	The question is: can we do more to make it happen? Are we doing enough to encourage businesses and apprenticeships? We have a high level of youth unemployment, although I have seen statistics today that show that there has been a small marginal fall throughout Northern Ireland, and that is good news. What are we doing to provide more jobs for them? We must encourage small businesses and make decisions to create growth in local economies and encourage business investment in our areas, creating employment and spending power.
	Time is slipping by and I am conscious that one more Member wishes to speak, so I will make a final point on communities. We have come a long way, but this is not simply because of an agreement to power share, but because of hard work on the ground within the communities. We have some of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom within Northern Ireland. We have many young people who are not working, and this breeds despondency in communities.
	I recently visited the Ards campus. More than 300 students are involved in the steps to work programme. All ages are involved and all have job opportunities at the end of that: good news. There is also an initiative for young Protestant males who leave school without qualifications. Local colleges ensure that even after leaving school they can gain qualifications. The South Eastern Regional college, with campuses at Bangor and Ards, has 5,862 students on further education courses, 240 above target, and 2,275 in higher education, against the target of 1,289. There is a big push to see 16 to 24-year-olds with essential skills, further training, and ultimately a job. Good qualifications are important for their CV, and this year 3,000 students will complete their courses. Work is also done with the Princes Trust on apprenticeships.
	Local community groups work hard within their communities and do great work with women, young people and men in their areas to provide new skills, new qualifications and learning, and this has to be respected and encouraged.
	We must address the issue of the flying of the Union flag, which has spread to many communities outside the capital. We very much see the flag as an indication of our foundation and a mark of respect to all those who laid down their lives to protect the inherent freedom that comes through being a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To remove this
	appeared to be an attack on something we hold dear—our Britishness. This of course provoked a reaction, but the hard work of local representatives and those on the ground stopped the escalation. The vast majority were on the streets peacefully, asking to be listened to in the only way they knew how to, saying that a shared future does not mean an erosion of the identity of the majority to pacify the minority, but respect for each other.
	This is a process in Northern Ireland that is ongoing. There is no easy fix. It takes a lot of time and support, and I look to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to see what can be done to lend support to all communities. This can be done in a practical manner by securing the funding for the work to continue in communities, and by coming to visit and listen to the people who struggle to feel of value and worth, and appreciating how far we have come and how many compromises we have made to make this happen.
	Few countries have what Northern Ireland has to offer, including business opportunities and unrivalled beauty. The shadow Secretary of State visited my area and said that it was one of the nicest places he had ever been in, even after his own constituency. We have a people whose warmth and friendship belies the pain that they have come through. This must be respected, promoted and encouraged, and Government and Opposition must continue to work together to do even better.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has revealed that the shadow Secretary of State is consistent in his geographic flattery as he tours the various constituencies of Northern Ireland, and no doubt constituencies elsewhere as well. I join others in welcoming the debate and commending the terms of the motion and the way in which it has accommodated a range of contributions on such a number of issues.
	Northern Ireland is in a much better place than it was. As Martin Luther King often said,
	“Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability”.
	It took real choices and commitments to bring about such change. It took people standing by some of those choices and commitments in helping to deliver a new beginning to politics and a new beginning to the British-Irish relationship––against the shrill opposition of many––and delivering on the new beginning to policing as well. One party said that it was not needed and another said that it would not happen. Those things had to be delivered so that we could move to the situation that we now have.
	When we negotiated the Good Friday agreement, I made the point, in leading the referendum campaign for my party, that it would be a new covenant of honour between the two traditions in Ireland. It would recruit and respect the sense and source of legitimacy of both the Unionist and the nationalist traditions by requiring endorsement by a majority of people in Northern Ireland and by a majority of people in the island as a whole. We would have institutions that would earn and enjoy the allegiance of both traditions and would be legitimate in their eyes because they had respected and recruited
	their respective senses and sources of legitimacy. Many people doubted that at the time, but that is what we now have.
	We now have a settled process, despite the turbulence and the issues we faced. During the first period of devolution, the First Minister and his Ministers were walking around with letters of resignation in their pockets, and we had other parties saying, “Jump out of the Executive now and we’ll jump out with you.” Of course there was instability, but it was not the result of inherent difficulties in the institutions themselves. The strains at that time were the result of difficulties outside the institutions relating to the various positions on decommissioning and reactions to policing changes and, especially, prisoner releases.
	In particular, we had difficulties because the two Governments at the time, although guarantors of the agreement, decided that an inclusive process had given us an inclusive agreement but that the way to resolve difficulties of interpretation and implementation was to have an exclusive process focusing on Sinn Fein on the one hand and the Ulster Unionist party on the other. That brought us into a situation in which the institutions were not centre stage in relation to the peace process. The Governments acted as though the institutions were secondary to the peace process.
	Thankfully, we are now in a situation in which even here we have a British Government saying clearly that devolution, where it has responsibility, needs to get its act together. I, for one, am glad that we do not have everyone running in and out of Downing street and going to their different party ATMs to try to get goodies and sweeties or whatever. We are being held to the level of our shared responsibility and we need to live up to it an awful lot more, as many Members have said.
	I particularly welcome what the shadow Secretary of State said about there still being a need to address the past. I have quoted before the Russian proverb that says, “To dwell in the past is to lose an eye, but to forget the past is to lose both eyes.” We need to address the past properly. I point out to the shadow Secretary of State that if the previous Government had managed to get away with passing the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which he tried whipping through in Committee and in this Chamber, we would be in no position to deal with the past. All sorts of people would have gone to the secret tribunal and got their indemnity certificates, so the only people who might have faced any question about past would be the relatives of victims who dared speculate that somebody had received such an indemnity or about the crime for which they had received it, because the Bill provided that that was who would go to jail. It would be journalists reporting or speculating on that or victims saying it who would go to jail. It was a horrendous Bill. Thankfully, we created a situation in which Sinn Fein was forced to withdraw its support from what we dubbed the Hain-Adams Bill and it was subsequently dropped. That at least created the space in which we can address the past, and that is what we must do. We, as parties, must stop patronising victims on the one hand and ghettoising them on the other. We have to face up to the past fully, and not just for the victims, but for future generations.
	Similarly, hon. Members have mentioned the whole question of flags, symbols and emblems. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) made a point that I have made in this Chamber before. As we arrive at 11 new councils, we must ensure that they are not faced with all sorts of difficulties about flags, emblems or even the very symbols of the councils themselves. Similarly, there will be issues about the naming of properties and sites in their areas and the renaming of older ones. Again, we need a common framework for dealing with those and setting mature and responsible standards, rather than being left in a situation of “what aboutery” in relation to things that go on in different council chambers.
	In their own way, the two flags that are cherished by the two traditions in Northern Ireland are, at best, symbols of unity, yet they end up being used as visual aids for sectarianism in a deeply offensive way. Combating that requires political leadership. The Good Friday agreement committed us to providing that shared leadership, but the parties have never got around to delivering it. Similarly, the agreement committed us to a Bill of Rights. I believe that we must achieve progress on the Bill of Rights.
	If we achieve a robust and articulate Bill of Rights, we might then see that parties need to rely less on the vetoes and negative features and protections built into the agreement. So long as people do not have the positive protection of a Bill of Rights to hold the Government and their different agencies and Departments to account, parties will rely on the agreement’s remaining negative provisions. I drafted some of them, including the designation paragraph, and I know why I did so—it was in the rules of the talks and had to be in the rules of the institutions that came out of those talks—but it was always our hope that some of those features would prove biodegradable as the environment changed and improved. I am glad that even Sinn Fein now seems to be talking about relaxing some of those provisions.

Stephen Pound: I am sure it is unnecessary to pay tribute to all Members who have spoken in an extraordinarily timely, appropriate and long overdue debate. It is a tradition of this House—it has grown over the years—for the wind-ups of Ministers and shadow Ministers to name-check every single speaker and credit them with the most extraordinary oratorical flourishes. I do not think that that is necessary and will simply concentrate on the finest and best speakers that we have heard this afternoon.
	I will start, of course, with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who, as ever, commanded the House and held us in the palm of his hand when he described the economic and cultural renaissance that exists not by coincidence, but by virtue of examples such as the Titanic quarter, which is an extraordinarily interesting place to visit.
	The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee ran through its greatest hits. I congratulate him on eschewing the false modesty to which others might have succumbed when he told us about his successes with regard to air passenger duty, corporation tax and fuel laundering. How right he was to avoid excessive modesty. The respect that many of us who have served on the Committee have for him probably grew today.
	The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) made an extremely thoughtful speech, in which he spoke from a position of almost unrivalled authority. I have no doubt that his positive and forward-looking comments will have impressed themselves on all Members.
	The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) made an unusual comment. It is not for me to criticise my betters, which I entirely accept he is, but to refer to hon. and right hon. Members dusting off their speeches and running through their old prejudices on occasions such as these was outrageous, even though one should not criticise an officer. However, we respect him for his contribution and I hope that he will accept that there was no dusting off of stump and set speeches. I think that everything we heard this afternoon was fresh, new and positive and very much in the best traditions of this House.
	When the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) spoke about a transformed city, she did so from an unrivalled position of authority. If there is one person in this House who stands as an example of the resilience of the people of Northern Ireland and their refusal to bow to sectarian assault, it is her. She has immense courage and her words resonated throughout the Chamber. When she spoke of the agonies of segregated lives, she described not only a current problem, but a future direction of travel, which we will simply have to address at some stage.
	I enjoy it when my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) speaks of sport. She could have mentioned her own remarkable achievements in that area. When I met her and the Sandy Row boxing club the other day, we did not discuss all-Ireland boxing, but we have now been educated on it. Sports groups and organisations in Northern Ireland are providing leadership. Two football teams from slightly different traditions in Belfast—Crusaders and Cliftonville—have for the past two or three years, very quietly and peacefully and without great fanfare, been getting on with cross-community working. I am not sure whether they have ever been given credit on the Floor of the House, but I would like to give credit to the Crus and to Cliftonville for their achievements in that area. I also congratulate the appropriate Members of Parliament for the support that they have given.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) demonstrated yet again, as if reminding was needed, what a superb constituency Member he is. Should there at any stage be the remotest threat to any business, any entrepreneur, any start-up, any lock-up garage, any car boot sale, anything within the environs of glorious, beauteous Ballymena, who will come riding forth on his white charger to protect them but the hon. Member for North Antrim? He referred to tobacco packaging. One would almost think there was a constituency interest there. Now that I come to think about it, I remember that Roy Beggs, when he was a Member of the House, and I visited that factory and I discovered, when the free samples were being given out afterwards, how extraordinarily capacious the poacher’s pocket of Roy Beggs’s ulster could be. That was the large coat that he used to wear. I do not think I have ever in my life seen so many packets of Silk Cut disappear into one garment. Yet again the hon. Member for North Antrim has proved that he is a first-class constituency representative.
	We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). He proved the old adage that if every single President of the United States is entirely Irish, particularly the present one, most Members of the House have some Irish ancestry. The interdependence and the links between our two nations, the shared ancestry, come across as a very important fact that we should never forget, because we are tied together in these islands by ties not just of history, commerce or convenience, but very often of blood, culture and shared history. It was salutary to hear his story of how people came to his constituency from Ireland and made a success, but he has never forgotten where he came from. We need to respect that.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to a work in progress. As ever, she brings oratorical flushes and realism in one glorious melange of accuracy. Although her comments were slightly warning, she was optimistic but realistic. That is the reputation that she has. Were we to get into a competition with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling about the beauty of various constituencies, South Down would be very high on my personal list. I mean to cause no offence to more than 99% of the House when I say that.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is, in my opinion, one of the most decent, God-fearing and good-hearted Members of the House. He also has an oratorical skill and the skill of language and poetry. If I could understand what he was saying most of the time, I am sure that I would never forget his words. I did have the advantage of a translator. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, who has spent much time in Strangford, gave me a running commentary.
	The hon. Member for Strangford referred to the fear in people’s faces and the sorrow in their eyes. That is poetry, and it is poetry from the heart. It is not an artifice but a genuine poetic instinct and an urge. If I may say so, it is an honour for us to hear that. He also used an expression that we should remember. It is one of the most important things that has been said today. He said that in Northern Ireland people are not only surviving, but thriving. That is something we should certainly remember. He also talked about how people are managing to overcome the difficulties that they face, and he did so with immense courage.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), as ever the Pericles of Derry, the man who somehow manages to produce these wondrous verbal confections at which the rest of us simply stand back in amazement, identified an extremely serious point when he spoke about instability. He said that the instability is not to do with the inherent difficulties with the institutions; it is to do with other factors. We need to concentrate on that. As ever, he came up with a glorious expression that we will never forget, when he said that we should not be patronising people, nor ghettoising people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling made one of the best speeches that I have heard on the Floor of this House. It was a speech that was positive and realistic. It contained one line that meant an enormous amount to me: devolution does not mean disengagement. When my hon. Friend made that point, he put down a marker. It was not a party political point, but reflected
	the attitude of the whole House. That line resonated in what the Secretary of State said and she echoed that emotion.
	Anyone who is listening to this debate should be sure of one thing: there is a cool, calm and determined attitude in this House. We have an unbreakable determination that the benefits of the peace process will not be lost. We will not, under any circumstances, go back to the cold, chill days of carnage and slaughter. We will move forward and it will be difficult, but there is an absolute commitment on the part of every single Member of this House, for the sake not just of our united nation or Northern Ireland, but our common humanity, to see this through and not to be beaten. The one message that comes from this afternoon’s debate is that there is a unanimity of view, emotion, strength and determination throughout this Chamber and, dare I say it, this country. If this debate has underlined that one point, we have achieved a great deal this afternoon.

Michael Penning: It is with some trepidation that I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound)—that is an unusual thing to call somebody from a party that is so diametrically opposed to my own—because he is such a great orator. Anybody who listened to his speech might not have understood the seriousness of the debate that we are having. However, the tone and humour that he brings to these debates bring us forward. It is a sign of where we are in the process that 18 Members have contributed in the past three hours, and that we have heard a speech that had so much humour and that got the whole House laughing on such a serious matter. I pay tribute to him for that and I look forward to working through the Bill that might come forward in the near future with him in Committee.
	I am looking around to see how many Whips and business managers are in the Chamber, because I am about to upset them. This afternoon was the perfect time for this debate. The tone of the debate and the motion were spot on and allowed everybody to contribute. I put it on the record that I think it is wrong that there is not an annual debate on Northern Ireland. My Secretary of State is behind me on that. It should not be down to one party or another to bring it forward. Perhaps that could happen through agreement with the business managers.
	The tone of the speech by the shadow Secretary of State was spot on. It is all too easy to make political points, but this is not that sort of debate.
	I want to say from the outset that I will not take interventions because I am conscious of the business that is to come after this debate. As the shadow Minister said, it will not be possible to respond to every point that has been raised by the 18 Members who have spoken. However, as always, my officials are listening and when I do not answer a question fully enough or at all, we will write to hon. Members. If more information is needed, we will have a subsequent meeting to discuss those matters.
	The Secretary of State reiterated the support of the Government and the House for Northern Ireland and the peace process. The peace process is not stationary or
	frozen, but is moving forward. Praise has rightly been given to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, including those who have retired with injuries, whom we must not forget, and those who have lost their lives serving this country. We must also remember the prison officers who have lost their lives over the years. One of the saddest things that I have ever attended was the funeral of David Black, with the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State.
	Although members of the Army are not patrolling the streets of Northern Ireland, as I did many years ago and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) did in the ’90s, they are acting there in two ways. First, they are there for the purposes of normalisation and are based in their normal bases, free to go where they need to with their families and loved ones and to train unfettered. Also, the boys and girls of our armed forces are going out more and more regularly to devices that are designed to kill. There are also an awful lot of hoax devices, including sophisticated ones. Until they go there and touch them, and do the job that they have been trained for, they do not know that they are hoaxes. I therefore put on record our praise and admiration for our armed forces and their bravery. Many of them have served many tours in Afghanistan doing a similar job, and sadly, they see similar devices in Northern Ireland as in Afghanistan and Iraq. They dedicate their lives to their country and its people.
	The members of our Security Service are the forgotten ones at times. We sometimes hear about them in the press, but it is a secret organisation. However, they are important to us in continuing to keep the peace and ensuring that the good guys continue to have good days. We have had some really good days recently when we have picked up devices and picked up people who want to kill. They need to know that they are highly likely to be arrested and go to prison for an awfully long time, and I am sure the House would reiterate that point with me.
	The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) sold Northern Ireland brilliantly. One thing that it has is compassion—there is a welcoming spirit when people arrive. I have found it warm and welcoming, as I know the Secretary of State has. That is why tourism does so well there. It is also because of the open border—people want to visit Ireland, and then they have the facility to come up to Northern Ireland. When I was the Minister responsible for shipping, I was involved in many controversial matters, but also in the Titanic centre and in bringing HMS Caroline to Belfast, which is another great coup. The coups have been such that my wife is insisting that I take her to the Titanic exhibition the next time she is over. I think she also wants to do a bit of shopping in the large shopping mall that is close to it.
	The Secretary of State and I are keen to open up Hillsborough castle not only for tourism but for the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland who want to come and see one of this country’s great houses. We are working on that as much as we possibly can.
	As we have heard, one great thing that is happening this year is the G8 summit. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister showed bravery in confronting those who were sceptical—there were plenty of them—and saying that if normalisation is to work, it means that when the G8 comes to the United Kingdom it should
	come to Enniskillen. Having visited, I think it is one of the most beautiful areas of the United Kingdom. It is not quite as nice as the Chilterns, in my constituency, but it is very close. I would not sell myself completely on the matter as the hon. Member for Ealing North did, but I understand where he was coming from. The beauty of Northern Ireland is there for all of us to see.
	The Derry/Londonderry City of Culture year is also hugely significant. I went the other day to the organisation’s head office, which is in an old barracks that I know well. Coming in the back way, it still looks like a barracks, but coming in round the other side I saw the transformation that had taken place. I walked across the Peace bridge and had lunch in a wonderful hotel just on the other side, and then walked on the wharves across Butcher’s Gate, which is something that I will remember for the rest of my life. I never thought I would be able to do that, whether I was a Minister or anybody else.
	I am conscious that we have other business, so I will conclude. This has been a fantastic debate, and I have not had time to congratulate Mary Peters on the world fire and police games or to talk about boxing, which I know from experience probably has more politics involved in it than what goes on in the Chamber. I commend the motion to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the significant and positive developments in Northern Ireland in recent years; acknowledges that challenges remain; and reaffirms its commitment to supporting peace, progress and prosperity in every community.

Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards

Tom Brake: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 16 July 2012 relating to the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards shall have effect in the next Session until the day on which the Commission makes its report on standards and culture of the UK banking sector.
	That a message be sent to the House of Lords to desire their concurrence.
	This motion is to allow the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards to continue its work in the new Session of Parliament, and to give it time to publish its final report on standards and culture in the banking sector. The Commission was established in July last year following the LIBOR rate-setting revelations, and it had a dual remit. First, it was to report on the lessons to be learned about corporate governance, transparency, conflicts of interest and their implications for regulation and Government policy. Secondly, it was given the role of looking more broadly at standards and culture in the UK banking sector, taking into account regulatory and competitions investigations into the LIBOR rate-setting process.
	The Commission reported on the first part of its remit on 21 December last year in its report on banking standards. It has subsequently published three further reports on structural reform of the banking sector, proprietary trading, and the failure of HBOS. Its final report is now awaited, and I understand that it is hoping to report early in the new Session. That would allow its conclusions to be taken into account in the House’s scrutiny of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, which has completed its Committee stage in the House and is awaiting Report.
	The motion is required because under the rules of both Houses of Parliament, Joint Committees cease to exist at the end of the Session in which they were established—unless specific provision is made for reporting by a specified date—or when they have reported on the matter entrusted to them. The motion does not specify a particular date by which the Committee must report, in order to provide the Commission with flexibility to complete its work on its own terms.
	The motion makes clear that the Commission will cease to exist when it produces its main report. Of course it is important to ensure that change in the banking sector is carried through, both through the Government’s commitment to introduce any necessary amendments to legislation arising out of the Commission’s work, and through appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of progress in the banking sector and its regulation after the Commission ceases. The Government welcome the valuable work the Commission has already done in examining the banking sector, and look forward to the publication of its final report in the near future. I commend the motion to the House.

Thomas Docherty: It is a pleasure to speak in this—hopefully short—debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, and I congratulate
	the Banking Commission on its work to date. Its reports so far have won cross-party support, which I am sure is in no small part due to the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie).
	There can be no doubt that the Banking Commission’s inquiry into malpractices at HBOS, which received so much merited attention recently, was the direct cause of James Crosby’s correct decision to return his knighthood. However, the success of the Banking Commission should not be measured by whether it generates headlines or compels one or two of the banking executives who caused the financial crash to apologise. It has made—and I am sure it will continue to make—a thoughtful and important contribution to the debate about the future of the UK banking industry.
	The Commission’s contribution will be best measured by how Parliament reforms the banking industry. It is therefore disappointing that the Treasury seems intent on pressing ahead with its plans, without awaiting the full conclusions of the Banking Commission’s deliberations. I therefore urge the Government to reconsider their timetable for future legislation to allow the Commission to finish its important work.
	I confess that I was not always the most diligent of students, and from time to time I had to ask for an extension to complete my work. The Opposition are clear, however, that that is not the reason for the sensible request for the life of the Commission to be extended. I understand that the Commission has worked tirelessly in recent months, and has met on many occasions a week in order to make progress. We see the short extension into the next Session of Parliament as a sensible and pragmatic step to ensure that the Commission is able to complete its work, and we commend the motion to the House.

Mr Speaker: Does the Deputy Leader of the House wish to respond? I do not think he needs to do so—he has moved the motion. If he is desirous of doing so, he can. He does not appear to be especially desirous. This is decision time! Does the Deputy Leader of the House wish further to favour the House with his thoughts?

Tom Brake: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do want to share my thoughts with the House, but they will be pleasingly brief.
	I welcome my Opposition counterpart back to the Dispatch Box after his thoughtful contribution to the tributes to Baroness Thatcher. I wish to respond to one of his points. I do not share the pessimism he displayed on the timetable or timing. I am confident that, if the Commission reports promptly, there will be time for its recommendations to be taken fully into account in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.
	With those brief points, I commend the motion to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

House of Commons Administration Estimate

[Relevant document:The First Report from the Finance and Services Committee, Session 2010-12, Proposed Standing Order on Motions and amendments with implications for the House Administration budget, HC 1768.]

John Thurso: I beg to move,
	That the following new Standing Order be made—
	‘Motions and amendments with a financial consequence for the House of Commons Administration Estimate.
	(1) Motions which would have a direct consequence of additional expenditure under the House of Commons: Administration Estimate estimated to be £50,000 or more shall not be considered by the House unless a memorandum setting out their expected financial consequences has been made available to the House.
	(2) The Accounting Officer shall make such a memorandum available to the House within a reasonable time of a motion to which this Order applies being tabled.
	(3)(a) This Order shall also apply to amendments to motions which would have the expenditure consequences set out in paragraph (1), but the absence of such a memorandum shall not prevent the House from considering such an amendment.
	(b) In his decision as to the selection of such an amendment, the Speaker shall, in addition to such other considerations as may, in his view, be relevant, take into account whether sufficient time has been available for the House to be provided with adequate information regarding the financial consequences.
	(4) The Speaker shall decide whether a motion or amendment falls within the terms of this Order.’.
	The motion is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Finance and Services Committee’s first report of this Parliament begins:
	“In the current Parliament, we have been seeking to ensure that the House Administration’s financial priorities are determined on a coherent basis by Members of this House, so that the House’s spending meets the needs of the House as a whole”.
	Enabling hon. Members as a whole to continue to determine that on a coherent basis is at the heart of the motion.
	Earlier in this Session, we had an excellent debate on the savings plan and the medium-term financial strategy, which enabled Members to vote on various aspects of our financial proceedings and to take charge of both the budget and the plans of the administration estimate. I welcomed that move, and I believe it was welcomed by many other Members. That goes to reinforcing the concept and the process by which the finances of the House are dealt with on a coherent basis by Members of the House. The motion is based on the simple proposition that, if the House is making a decision with a significant financial impact on its budget, it should have access to the basic information required on the cost and other financial consequences, so that it can make the decision in a coherent way.
	For example, in the past we have had Government proposals to set up Select Committees. Each Select Committee has a considerable cost impact—it is in the order of £500,000 a year. When the Government introduce legislation, we expect them to tell us what the financial impact will be. It therefore seems entirely reasonable that the House should know about such financial impacts. Previously, there has perhaps been an expectation that extra costs could always be accommodated regardless,
	but in these days when we want to ensure that costs are properly considered, it is right that we have the knowledge to make such decisions.
	The proposal was made by the Finance and Services Committee. Before we arrived at the current text, it was discussed by the House of Commons Commission, and discussed on a number of occasions by the Procedure Committee and the Leader of the House. The current text is broadly agreed by all in principle. There were a number of doubts about the wording among members of the Procedure Committee, but I hope they have been dealt with in the current text.

Kate Hoey: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether, if this proposal had been in operation two or three years ago, Members of the House would have had any say in the last remaining day switchboard moving to Southampton on 8 May? Anyone phoning the House of Commons, night or day, will be talking to someone based in Southampton, and when I rang in the evening last week—the night switchboard has already moved—the location of Derby Gate was not even known. Would that have been any different? Would we, as Members of Parliament, have had any say?

John Thurso: The hon. Lady has raised this matter tenaciously; indeed, she has raised it with me. The answer is that if the matter were put before the House in a motion, the financial consequence would have to be revealed. If it were not, and was put together by way of the financial plan, the debate such as the one we had last year would have been exactly the place to have raised such a matter. The two things go together, and that is entirely in keeping with allowing Members a say on such things in future.

Nigel Mills: One potential consequence of the Standing Order would be that, if the accounting officer so wished, he could decline to put the financial details into the House domain and therefore the debate on the motion could not happen. What does the hon. Gentleman understand “a reasonable time frame” to mean—a day, a week, five years?

John Thurso: I am blessed by the fact that I would never have to make the decision; it would be a decision for Mr Speaker and his advisers. As we all know, the Speaker is always right. Therefore, whatever decision he made would be both reasonable and appropriate. It was written deliberately in such a way that the final word is with the Chair for precisely the reason that if something came up where an exception were needed, it could be dealt with. That is very important.

Charles Walker: May I confirm that the absence of a financial memorandum would not necessarily mean that a debate would be denied?

John Thurso: It is my understanding that a financial memorandum would be expected, and there are a number of occasions where it could be short and simple. If a circumstance arose in which a financial memorandum could not be prepared, it would be in the hands of Mr Speaker to make a decision. That is my understanding. If I have got that wrong, and there is a small percentage chance that that is the case, I will certainly come back to the hon. Gentleman.
	The effect of the Standing Order would be to require the accounting officer to provide a memorandum for any expenditure of more than £50,000 to the administration estimate. An example of such a motion, as I mentioned earlier, would be a proposal to establish a Select Committee. The Standing Order would also require a memorandum to be provided in respect of an amendment to a motion, if it would have a similar financial impact. As less notice might be given of an amendment, the absence of a memorandum would not necessarily prevent it from being debated, but the Speaker might take that factor into account in his selection of amendments. I therefore suggest, in partially addressing my previous answer, that there would nearly always be time for a motion, but the Chair may take a view where amendments are tabled. That is the most likely consequence.
	This is a very small, but important change. It follows the principle that our decisions should be coherent and based on facts, so that we can make a measured judgment, and in the hands of the Members of this House. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

Thomas Docherty: It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box so quickly. I welcome the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) to his place. He probably regrets deeply having moved on to DEFRA and not having an opportunity to respond to this exciting and important debate.
	The Opposition believe in fully informed decision making, and I say that not just because my deputy Chief Whip is sitting next to me. We see this as a sensible and pragmatic move forward. It is obviously correct that Members be given as much information as possible about the financial consequences of House decisions.
	I congratulate the Chairman of the Procedure Committee on his persuasive powers in getting this tabled for debate today. It has cross-party support and has been signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), the shadow Leader of the House. I would like to ask a couple of questions of the Deputy Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who represents the Commission. We have just had a good short debate about the Banking Commission. In the spirit of informing the House, perhaps it would be appropriate for the Deputy Leader of the House to give an estimate of how much the Banking Commission has cost so far and of what it will run to in the next Session. If he does not have it to hand, I am sure he can write to me.
	The Deputy Leader of the House will also be aware that this is the first of many Committee reports that will require the House’s attention. By my count, there are currently five more Procedure Committee reports, including on such things as e-petitions and how we elect the Speaker and Deputy Speakers. Will he give us some indication of when they will be taken? I hope he will not say “soon”. I hope for something slightly more substantive than that.
	Finally, I have a quick question for the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. The House will have seen yesterday that the Procedure
	Committee published a commendable report on the debating of e-petitions. It has estimated that the cost of making Westminster Hall available on Monday between 4.30 pm and 7.30 pm for the debating of e-petitions that get 100,000 signatures would be between £11,000 and £100,000, depending on the number of e-petitions. Given that the lowest estimate would fall below the £50,000 threshold, will he clarify whether he intends all such motions brought before the House to come with cost estimates?

Tom Brake: I rise to speak in support of the motion before the House. It has been on the Order Paper for some considerable time, and it is good that the House now has the opportunity to consider it.
	The motion arises out of the work of the Finance and Services Committee. The reasoning behind it and the process undertaken in coming to this solution have been expertly outlined by its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). I am grateful to him and the rest of the Committee, which conducts important work on behalf of the House, for their constructive approach in seeking the agreement of the House of Commons Commission and working collaboratively with the Procedure Committee in reaching this solution.
	As right hon. and hon. Members will see from the Order Paper, both the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House have signified their support for the motion by adding their names to it. The proposed Standing Order addresses the issue that at any time the House can pass a motion that adds costs to the administration budget. As the Finance and Services Committee recognised in its report, that is not a creditable way for the finances of a major public body to be run. The proposed Standing Order will not prevent the House either from debating the motions it wants to debate or from making the decisions it wants to make, but it will ensure that decisions are made on the basis of access to basic information about the financial consequences of those decisions. The House has rightly set itself the target of reducing the administration estimate, so it is a matter of good governance that the attached Standing Order be approved to support the House in that aim.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) asked me a couple of questions. First, I can assure him that at an appropriate point the full costs of the Banking Commission will be confirmed, but I am not in a position to do that now. Secondly, he has rightly pointed out that there are other matters relating to the work of the Procedure Committee that could usefully be discussed—under Remaining Orders, for instance—and to which he has put his name. He will
	be pleased to hear, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has discussed with the Procedure Committee’s Chair the priority placed on the different motions. I hope that the House will get the chance to resolve these issues—I will not say “soon”—without undue delay. I am happy to support the motion on the Order Paper.
	Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Regulatory Needs of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7268/13 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: Smart Regulation—Responding to the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises; and supports the Government’s efforts to make further progress in reducing unnecessary EU regulatory burdens placed on SMEs by working with EU partners to achieve early action on the issues highlighted in the Commission’s Communication.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Tribunals and Inquiries

That the draft Transfer of Tribunal Functions Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft Amendments to Schedule 6 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 Order 2013, which were laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Climate Change

That the draft CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Official Statistics

That the draft Official Statistics Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

UPLAND SHEEP FARMERS

[The Third Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2010-12, on Farming in the Uplands, HC 556, and the Government’s response thereto, HC 953, Session 2010-12, are relevant.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Glyn Davies: A few weeks ago, an unusually late and heavy snowfall, accompanied by extensive drifting in the uplands of Wales and other areas of Britain, hit the farming industry and visited disastrous consequences on sheep farmers in all those hill areas. There were dramatic, heartbreaking reports in the media of farmers digging sheep out from under 10-foot drifts of snow—many of the sheep were obviously near death—and the despair of knowing that hundreds more sheep were dying under the snow.
	Today the snow has gone. It was a lovely sunny morning as I walked over Westminster bridge today. The images of despair have disappeared from our screens. As the world continues on its way, those images have inevitably disappeared from the minds of most of the British people, but they have not disappeared from my mind, probably because I was an upland sheep farmer for most of my life.

Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. Given the 22% fall in lamb prices last year and the fact that, as he rightly points out, this year’s unseasonal snowfall has made the situation acute, is there not a duty on the processors and the large retailers to pay a fair price for this produce?

Glyn Davies: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman, although today I will try to avoid dealing with some of the consequential commercial issues relating to the current position. What I want to address—I will come to this—is what I see as the disconnect between hill sheep farming today and what the wider general population thinks. If I can, I will keep away altogether from what might be deemed to be political issues, where there might be divisions of views.
	The impact of the recent snowfall on the sheep-farming uplands remains, despite the snow having gone. It has not gone away with the snow. Today it is not about digging out sheep from under snowdrifts; it is more about collecting and disposing of the dead bodies of sheep and planning how to put businesses back together. I am probably one of few MPs—I might not be the only one—who has been out digging sheep out from under 10-foot snowdrifts. I particularly remember 1963, when the United Kingdom experienced far more snow and far colder conditions, and for much longer than this year. I was a teenager working on the family farm when the drifting snow buried hundreds of our sheep as they sheltered near walls and hedges. My father and I spent days searching under the snow for them. It was heartbreaking work. Most heartbreaking of all was having to stop at nightfall, knowing that there were still hundreds of sheep asphyxiating beneath our feet.
	What was particularly devastating about the recent snowfall was that it was so late in the year. In 1963, the snow fell on Boxing day and lasted until early March, but this year it fell at the end of March, which is the
	traditional lambing season in the uplands. As the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) has pointed out, the sheep sector was already facing what the Prince’s Trust called a “perfect storm” of negative influences in March. I shall not go into all the details, but the upland sheep farmers were already facing severe problems, and the impact of what has happened has been devastating.
	I want to make it clear why I have sought today’s debate. Initially, I had not intended to make any public comment. Agriculture in my constituency is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. Naturally, I was in conversation with friends and members of the farming unions about what had happened, and at first I was heartened by the fact that the Welsh Government Minister had arranged to come to Montgomeryshire to meet local farmers and union leaders. However, when farmers contacted me after the meeting, I was horrified by the Minister’s approach, which had been totally unsympathetic and dismissive. Everyone was deeply upset by that.
	I felt that that was unacceptable, and I discussed the matter with the Assembly Member colleague in Montgomeryshire, Russell George. Together, we set about seeking to change the tone of the debate. I posted my thoughts on my blog, “A View from Rural Wales”, which had quite an impact, and resolved to seek a debate in this House as soon as Parliament returned from the Easter recess. My Assembly colleague raised an urgent question in the Welsh Assembly. For whatever reason, the Welsh Government Minister responded with a far more sympathetic approach, and made a realistic and positive statement. I congratulate him on that. The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) also published a statement here last Thursday, and again it was realistic and positive. So the terms of the debate have changed to some extent. It is clear to me that both Parliaments, in Cardiff Bay and in Westminster, now recognise the scale of the disaster that has struck upland sheep farmers.
	I should also make it clear that I am not calling for more compensation or more subsidy for sheep farmers. Some might wish to do that, but I do not want to do so today. There will be other debates about agricultural support, and in particular about how British agriculture can remain competitive with the subsidised agricultural systems across the European Union. There might be an occasion for a debate in Wales about the controversial issue of hill farming subsidies, but I do not want to deal with those matters now. My aim today is to address what seems to be a growing disconnect between the business and tradition of farming in the uplands and the rest of the population.

Hywel Williams: I am glad that we are having this debate today. What is the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the level of support given to farmers in other parts of the UK, given that agriculture is a devolved matter? I have seen correspondence from representatives of various countryside organisations in Wales pointing out to the Minister in Cardiff that there are advantages to be had in other parts of the UK. What is the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the situation?

Glyn Davies: I have not made such an assessment. I have seen two of the statements, but I have not looked at what has happened in Scotland or in Northern Ireland.
	I know that there are differences, however, and it is inevitable that they will be pointed out. At one stage, I thought that I might do that today, but I specifically decided against it because it would inevitably have led to the kind of debate that I did not want. I am probably a bit unusual in that I did not want a debate with a great deal of confrontation. Instead, I want to highlight the issue so that people can understand what has happened.
	I want to say something about the sort of things that happened when the snow fell and re-formed itself into huge drifts. Yesterday, in a sort of surgery, I talked to union leaders and upland farmers at Welshpool livestock market. I spoke to one farmer who had just sent 72 dead sheep away in a lorry. He had also picked up another 72 dead sheep and they were awaiting collection. That illustrates the scale of what is happening. To make a terrible situation worse, he will have to pay several thousand pounds to have them taken away. That is not an uncommon experience.
	On Sunday night, I switched the television on and watched the excellent Adam Henson covering the scale of the deaths on “Countryfile”. I caught the latter part of the debate. There was a large pile of carcases in the corner of the yard, but it was noticeable that the image was blurred to accommodate the sensitivity of the viewers. It was felt that they should not have to see all those dead sheep piled up like that. However, the vision of piles of dead sheep is not blurred for the owners of the dead sheep. For them, it is all too real. If people are to understand the impact, they need to know what is happening.

William McCrea: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very timely debate. From experience, he will understand the horror that happened in Northern Ireland when 20,000 dead animals were buried beneath the snow. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that many of these farmers are heartbroken, not only because of the death of the sheep but because of what it meant for their future as well as their past.

Glyn Davies: That was the very point I was coming to.
	I spoke to another farmer who came to see me with his wife yesterday, desperately worried about how his family business was going to survive. Normally, his flock produces 340 lambs to sell in the autumn. This year, he will have but 120, and some of those will have to be retained as replacement stock. The only chance of survival will be from off-farm income, and so many others are in the same position right across Britain.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech on an extremely important subject. From what I hear from my sheep farmers in Teesdale, I know that they face similar issues. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the media coverage. It seems to me that we have heard endless news from the United States over the last fortnight, but extremely little coverage of this problem. I hope that his excellent speech will be heard beyond “Farming Today”.

Glyn Davies: I certainly agree with that intervention, and I share the hon. Lady’s hopes.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so gracious in giving way. One issue brought to our attention in Northern Ireland—the same will be true of Wales, too—is the fact that building up all the pedigrees of some of these sheep herds can take 10 or 20 years, which makes them quite expensive. To lose them all in one go is a tremendous tragedy for the families concerned. Does that underline the fact that there must be help from both the Government and from the Welsh Assembly?

Glyn Davies: The point about losing whole flocks is an important one, in view of the breeding that has gone into them. I know from my experience when I was actively sheep farming that one particular line in the flock could be hugely valued. Along that particular line, it was possible to get to know the sheep as individuals. When all those sheep are just suddenly taken, it is devastating.
	This is such a wide-ranging debate and I could have picked a thousand different aspects to discuss, but I want briefly to cover two further aspects and I ask the Minister to help me on one point of clarity. First, there is the emotional impact of what has happened. Working with livestock is not the same as working in other forms of industry. Animals are living creatures and farmers, in a funny sort of way, get to know them as individuals. My flock comprised about 1,000 sheep, but there were lots of individuals among them whom I got to know. It is not the same as producing widgets, for example, because it is dealing with living animals.

Margaret Ritchie: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland that was badly affected by the snow. Many upland farmers in the Mournes and in Slieve Croob were affected. I travelled through tunnels of snow to visit those farmers, and on one particular farm, I saw about 29 ewes and lambs lying under a tarpaulin. When that was pulled back, I could see that they were all dead. I also noticed collapsed livestock sheds. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, because of the bond between the farmer and his sheep, we need a particular taskforce to deal with the restoration and renewal of upland farms for upland farmers?

Glyn Davies: Again, I agree with that intervention and I feel certain that the agriculture departments in the three devolved countries and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be doing that very thing. I certainly hope so; perhaps the Minister will address that point in his response.

Rory Stewart: My hon. Friend is very generous in taking interventions. Does he agree that we need to put this issue in the much broader context of the very difficult time that sheep farmers are having in general? Across the Bailey and Bewcastle valleys in my constituency, there have been two years of horror with poached soil, fluke and the snow coming at the end of that. If we are to retain the fabric of small farms, which I think we would all like to do, we really need to think over the next two to three
	years of what kind of measures can be put in place—apart from the particular issue of snow—to preserve small farming for the future.

Glyn Davies: That is a very good point. Earlier I mentioned the description by the Prince’s Trust of the circumstances that we were experiencing before the snowfall. A number of elements, connected with the weather, the Schmallenberg disease and other issues, had combined to put the sheep in a very difficult position. The businesses of the farmers who were hit by the huge snowfall, however, have been put under real threat.

Jason McCartney: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the issue of the plight of sheep farmers; my Pennine constituency was also badly hit by the snow. Does he agree, however, that sheep farmers were already struggling because a wet summer had reduced the quality of hay feed? Some of them told me that they were having to rely on sheep nuts and sugar beet shreds, both of which cost about £7 a bag. They were already challenged by the financial cost of making up for a very wet summer before the snow hit.

Glyn Davies: I agree, and I was interested by my hon. Friend’s reference to sheep nuts. Lorries have not been able to deliver them, and everyone else wants them to feed to their cattle. A huge shortage of food has made a disastrous position even worse.

Albert Owen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate, to which he brings considerable experience. As well as the problems caused by energy and food costs, there is the problem that many small businesses were encouraged to diversify into tourism, which has also been affected by last year’s long periods of adverse weather. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need a special review of the situation, covering not just agriculture but tourism and other aspects of the rural environment?

Glyn Davies: I do agree. I contemplated the possibility of expanding the debate to include other businesses—and, while tourism is the obvious example, other businesses will have been affected—but decided that that would weaken the thrust of the point I wanted to make. I do not seek in any way to belittle the issue, but I wanted to concentrate on something else today.
	Most of the livestock that we are discussing would eventually have been sent to an abattoir. Strangely, that is accepted among farmers as being the natural order of things, but what happened in this instance was not the natural order, and it has been hugely stressful.
	During the most recent foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, I was Chair of the National Assembly’s Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee. For several months, I spent most days—and it often continued late into the night, until the early hours of the morning—talking to people in distress who were unable to cope with the fact that all their animals, many of them prized animals, were being put down and burnt as a consequence of contact with the disease. Interestingly—I say that it was interesting now, but it was tragic then—it was not the farmers who were ringing me, but their wives and parents, who were deeply worried about the men. It is mostly men who work in that industry. Livestock farming is a lonesome life, and those wives and parents were
	hugely worried about the mental state of the farmers and about what they might do. Indeed, the tragedy is that some of them did the very worst.

Nia Griffith: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the Welsh Minister, Alun Davies, has asked the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution to tackle the problem? The institution can speak to farmers and their families individually, and offer them the support to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Glyn Davies: I was not going to make that point myself, and I thank the hon. Lady for making it. I am very pleased that the Welsh Government have given half a million pounds to charities that are in a position to identify and support those who are suffering from stress. They can do that better than a Government could ever do it. Although I was disappointed by the approach taken in the first three or four days, I think that the Minister’s response since then has been entirely positive, and I congratulate him on it.
	The fact that animals have died under the snow is not the only issue, although that has received a lot of attention. There are also the issues of the other animals that have died, the loss of the grass that has been killed off by the snow and the consequent widespread shortage of feed.
	Many people who do not understand hill farming do not understand that hill ewes will not readily take to artificial feed, as lowland breeds do. There will be heavy losses from snow fever and twin lamb disease, and as a result of animals that simply will not eat feed when their natural grass has gone. Huge numbers of animals will be dying from mineral deficiencies. The inevitable shortage of milk will result in lambs succumbing to illness and dying, too. They will be crushed into confined spaces, where there is much greater incidence of disease. Lambs will die in large numbers of joint ill and infectious scour, which can go straight through a flock. I remember when I had my whole flock in as a result of adverse weather conditions, but I had to turn them out into the snow, because disease arises when the animals are crammed into small spaces. Hill farmers are not used to that. They are geared up to lambing in April and lambing out. All of this adds to the direct losses from snow.
	The Governments in Cardiff Bay and Westminster have responded with statements, both of which are positive and hugely welcome. I want to inject that positive note into this debate.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the concept of cynefin—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) tells me that the word in English is hefting. There will be difficulties and costs involved in replacing these sheep. This will not be a one-off incident; the effects will be felt for many years.

Glyn Davies: I entirely agree. I remember that when foot and mouth disease spread on to the Brecon Beacons, huge flocks were lost, and were lost for ever.
	Most of the farmers I have spoken to are unsure what to do with their dead animals, of which they have large numbers. Normally, they would have them collected, at
	considerable cost, and taken away to be incinerated, but the National Fallen Stock Company could not reach the farms because of the snow and the farmers were told by the Welsh Assembly Minister that he was considering a derogation from the relevant EU regulation to allow farmers to bury dead animals on their farms. My understanding, however, is that that derogation is a matter for local government and that there was no requirement for farmers to wait for an announcement from the Welsh Minister. All that was needed was an agreement with the relevant local authority. That situation seems odd and I find it confusing. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) for securing this timely and important debate. It is also good to have so many colleagues present, expressing their concerns about the communities in their areas. We have heard from Members representing at least three of the nations of the United Kingdom. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams), for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) from Wales. From Northern Ireland, we have heard from the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie). From England, we have heard from the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney).
	They all expressed the point of view of their constituents: a sense of horror at what has happened and a sense of the need to do everything we can to support a very vulnerable group of people and a vulnerable industry, because the last few weeks have been a disaster for many farmers in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. To experience such severe spring snowfall is almost unprecedented. We have never seen 10-ft drifts this late in the year. The point that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was making, and others were reflecting, is that it hit some of our most economically vulnerable farmers at their busiest time, with the lambing season in full swing. No wonder there are people who are experiencing genuine trauma as a consequence.
	As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, in the past few days the weather has improved, but when I visited Cumbria recently I saw a lot of snow still lying in the affected areas. Until that clears, which may take a considerable time in the highest areas, we will not be able to quantify the damage fully, but we know that in some individual cases it will be enormous.
	I should stress that this problem is very geographically limited. There are some farms next to each other, one of which has been devastated and the next hardly touched. It is remarkable that some farms were very deeply affected and others were not. But for those that are affected there will be, as we already know, many thousands of dead sheep and lambs. As the hon. Member for Arfon said, although he said it in Welsh and I shall not attempt to do the same, a lot of those will be hefted sheep. They have been bred for generations on some of
	the roughest, highest, most isolated parts of the fells and uplands, and the loss of those animals only adds to the weight of the blow. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire told the House, he has had first-hand experience of the emotional trauma and the financial pain caused by losses on that scale.
	I visited the north-west of England 10 days ago, to see the damage for myself. It was deeply shocking to see the effect on individual farmers. There is a real sense of devastation and there are people with massive worries about the future.

Mark Williams: That position was compounded by another point that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire made, about the burial arrangements and whether the EU burial regulations are robust enough to deal with those very exceptional circumstances. What is the Minister’s view on that?

David Heath: I will return to that, if I may, in just a moment.
	I met farmers who have lived their entire lives in the uplands. These are not soft people. These are not weak people. These are some of the strongest, hardest men and women that you would care to meet in this country. They were feeling quite clearly devastated by the position they now find themselves in. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows, I was in Northern Ireland a few days ago as well, just talking to people about their experiences there—not my responsibility, as he will appreciate, in terms of the devolved settlement—and I heard exactly the same stories; exactly the same pain was being felt.

Roger Williams: I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate. The Minister is quite right that a lot of the effect of the snow was very local. Certainly in the Radnor forest in my constituency it was particularly difficult. I want to make the point that the whole sheep industry has suffered a very long period of very severe weather, which has left a lot of those ewes very weak going into lambing, so it is not just the people that have been affected by snow but almost the whole of the sheep industry that has had a very difficult time.

David Heath: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In those extreme conditions of very heavy snowfall, with violent winds—in Cumbria, violent easterly winds coming in off the sea and causing the drifting—the sheep did what sheep do, which is to turn their backs to the wind and walk, and they found themselves trapped against walls or obstacles or under drifts. But what compounded that was that our sheep flocks, sadly, are not in good condition—because of the weather, because of events over many months now, because of the fact that, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, fluke is a real problem at the moment. Many issues have come together in a concatenation that is causing the difficulties that many of our livestock farmers face.

Jim Shannon: It was a pleasure to have the Minister in my constituency last week so that he could hear at first hand from the farmers in the area what the issues were. He will have heard from the farmers, but also from elected representatives from the Assembly, from
	Members of Parliament and from Members of the European Parliament, what measures the Northern Ireland Assembly had taken to help to address some of the issues for the farmers in Northern Ireland. Will he be able to use those examples to help other regional bodies, such as the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament?

David Heath: It is important that we all learn from one another. The answers will not be the same in every part of the United Kingdom, and the proportional scale of difficulties will be different. We must listen to what each other are doing and hopefully come towards the right solution, but also listen to what the farmers themselves in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom are telling us. Certainly that is what I wanted to do with regard to England. I cannot speak for what happened in Northern Ireland and say whether it was the right solution, and similarly for Wales. I can see what has been done, but it seemed to me that my responsibility was to listen to the farmers and their representatives in England, and to do what they asked me to do so far as I could, in order to mitigate the difficulties that farmers were facing.

Helen Goodman: My constituent, John Warren, has specifically asked me to raise this point with the Minister. He is concerned that in Scotland the National Fallen Stock Company was used to distribute state aid. He asked me to urge the Minister not to go down the same route in England. He was concerned that if he did, the aid would not necessarily reach the right farmers and the farmers who had been most severely affected. He asked if a more direct mechanism might be used for distributing the aid that will be consequent on the losses due to the bad weather.

David Heath: I will come back to that point in a moment if I may, but the most important thing is that we reach those farmers who are severely affected, irrespective of whether they are registered with the National Fallen Stock Company. I want to make that absolutely clear, and I hope that that will help the hon. Lady’s constituent.
	I want to put on record how grateful I am to the local NFU in Cumbria and the farmers themselves. I will mention Alistair Mackintosh and Robin Jenkinson in Corney Fell who gave their time to explain the consequences to me and to help me to understand what they were up against. I strongly feel that as a Minister one of the best ways to respond to a problem of this kind is simply to talk to people and see for oneself, and then, I hope, take the appropriate decisions.
	I also want to put on record the strong impression that I had in Cumbria that the farming community and the wider rural community have responded in a positive and big way. A lot of mutual support went on and continues to go on. People helped one another, and farmers who were not affected searched for sheep on their neighbours’ holdings when they realised that they were in trouble. That is the country way and it is what we expect, but it was happening.
	People who were not connected with farming also lent their support. I will mention one group of people, an organisation that occasionally we have differences of opinion with. It was pointed out to me how profoundly helpful the RSPCA officers in the area had been, lending a hand and getting stuck in, not in strict pursuance of
	their duties as RSPCA officers but because they cared about the animals and the farmers and wanted to do their bit.
	I will also mention the banks, because they almost universally get a bad press. It was pointed out to me how helpful HSBC has been in the area and how it has gone out of its way and bent over backwards to offer local farmers support at a time when they desperately need it. I do not know whether that was universal and whether other banks followed suit, but it is important to put it on the record when people help and are prepared to be supportive.

Simon Hart: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. There has been a lot of talk about sheep, but I hope that the Minister also recognises that the dairy industry has been significantly affected. In some cases, cattle condition and milk yields have gone down as a result of the weather, so perhaps the banks and the companies that—

Mr Speaker: Order. Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman that I understand that his intention is good, and why he wants to draw a parallel, but I am afraid that it is not relevant. We are on sheep farmers and we must stick to that, not start to stray into other matters, which he has done.

David Heath: Of course, I am happy to take your guidance on that, Mr Speaker. I will say that in the parts of the country I visited the casualties, almost exclusively, were sheep. It was the sheep flocks that were devastated, although of course other livestock are affected in such extreme circumstances.
	I also want to say—this point was made by the hon. Member for Llanelli—that charities are playing a crucial role in supporting those in real hardship, sometimes simply by acting as a compassionate friend, which is exactly what is needed by people who often lead very isolated lives. Sometimes they just need a shoulder to lean on, and I think that it is extremely important that the charities provide that.
	I have received many hundreds of e-mails and letters from individual members of the public who want to support the farmers affected through donations, directly with a pick and shovel, or in the supermarkets by buying British lamb. That is a message I want to get across: one thing that every single person can do to support the British sheep meat industry, wherever they live in the country, is go out and ask the supermarkets for British lamb. I hope that is recognised as one of the most powerful things they can do. Retailers—this is something the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said—can play a part in that, not only through the price of meat, but by highlighting the quality of British lamb and sheep meat.

Albert Owen: The Minister is absolutely right that we should be buying British lamb, and Welsh lamb, as a priority—[Interruption.] It is British, of course. Has he or his Department contacted other national Governments and Assemblies in this country to assess the impact the adverse weather has had on the sheep industry and other food industries and on the price for the consumer in the United Kingdom?

David Heath: As I think I said earlier, it is actually quite difficult to assess the impact now, but of course we will continue that dialogue with the devolved Administrations. At the moment, we are still effectively dealing with an emergency situation. Many factors affect the price of meat, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but it is an assessment that we need to make, and I am happy to work with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to do that.

Albert Owen: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I understand that this is a crisis and that it takes time to assess it, but as we have discussed in the debate, a number of adverse weather conditions have impacted on the industry. Will he, working with the other Assemblies in the United Kingdom, conduct a proper assessment of the impact on food prices now, and not just for this crisis, but for previous adverse weather impacts?

David Heath: As the hon. Gentleman says, there is the cumulative effect of a number of things. To be perfectly honest, this particular event, devastating though it has been for a significant number of farmers, but luckily not so many, will not in itself have a real effect on food prices, but I think that, in a wider context, what we have experienced over the past six to nine months will. We must also look at the effect that imports from other countries might be having, particularly on the price of British lamb—I will persist in saying British lamb, because I am the Minister responsible for agriculture in England as well as in the UK.

Kate Hoey: Is the Minister considering the issue of derogation, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, and should the Prime Minister not be addressing this in his review of the European Union? Should not we in this country be able to make a decision at a local level about how farmers get rid of their stock?

David Heath: The answer is that we can, and I shall move on to that in moment. This is one area in which we do not have a difficulty in that respect, as I shall explain later.

Rory Stewart: Derogations have been important, not just for livestock disposal, but for the use of red diesel and the working time directive, and farmers in Cumbria and across the country have been grateful for the flexibility shown by the Government in all those derogations.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and perhaps this is an opportune time for me to set out some of the things we have done. I will not pretend that any of them provide the complete answer, but I hope that they have been of help. As he said, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has, as we have done previously, allowed farmers to use red diesel in their tractors to help grit and clear snow from public roads. That has been important in getting access to some areas. Without that derogation, I think it would be impossible to reach some isolated communities.
	Importantly, we have also secured a temporary relaxation of the enforcement of the European Union drivers’ working hours, in order to ensure that essential supplies of animal feed deliveries have been able to get through. That is crucial for farmers who did not expect their
	sheep to need to be fed—that is despite the palatability or otherwise, and I entirely understand the point about how difficult it is to persuade a mountain sheep to suddenly switch to sheep nuts, but better that than the alternative, and it is important that those feed supplies get through.
	We have also worked closely with the National Fallen Stock Company to arrange the best possible terms for the collection of dead animals. One of the most striking things is that every farmer has casualty animals and needs to call somebody to take away the carcasses. Some have skips full of 50, 60 or 70 dead animals and the cost of disposing of them individually would have mounted up and become unsupportable. It is important, therefore, that the cheapest possible bulk terms were negotiated at an early stage with the NFSC.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and others mentioned the rules for the burning or burial of livestock on farms. The rules for the disposal of carcasses are governed by the European Union’s Animal By-Products Regulations 2003, which make it illegal, normally, to dispose of a carcass on-farm. However, a specific derogation in those regulations that the UK has authorised and continues to authorise allows for the on-farm disposal of carcasses if the conditions are too difficult to get them to a collection vehicle. That applies in a number of circumstances. I reminded local authorities, who can prosecute if they believe that there has been an infringement of those regulations, that they have the capacity to take into account the individual circumstances under the derogation, and that they should apply maximum flexibility in the affected areas. I am very happy that they were able to do that. I understand that precisely that provision was also used in Wales in order to provide for the local authorities there. The local authorities had the power to do so; we simply reminded them that they had that power, because it was important.
	That has been helpful for some farmers, but not for all. What struck me in Cumbria was that on some high fell farms there was no way that an animal could be buried on that sort of terrain. I can perfectly well understand the strength of feeling against pyres being built and operated on the farms, but in a way it surprised me by its intensity. It is clear that farmers did not want to be reminded of very difficult times not so long ago, when the countryside was littered with funeral pyres of dead animals. They did not want that—they wanted those dead animals off the farm. That very much influenced my view of what we should do next.
	To complete the initial variations that we made, Natural England has at our request temporarily lifted some of the land management requirements that normally apply to environmental stewardship agreements, which gives farmers a bit more flexibility to deal with the impact of the recent extreme weather.
	Last Thursday I made a statement to the House about the effects of the severe weather. It confirmed the latest move that we have applied in England in our programme of support for English farmers. We have made up to £250,000 available to reimburse farmers for the cost of removing sheep killed in the snow. The funds will go towards the very specific problem of removing animals that have died on-farm as a direct result of the March snowfall. I have seen some comment and some suggestion that that is not enough. It is enough, according to our best information from the National Farmers
	Union—the representatives of the farmers. We have relied on the information that they have given us in order to meet the immediate needs.

Margaret Ritchie: Could the Minister find out whether it would be possible to get permission from the European Union to use any unspent rural development moneys to help regenerate uphill sheep farmers and their farms?

David Heath: I think the situation will be different for each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, so I hesitate to give the hon. Lady an answer that might mislead her about the position in Northern Ireland. We are currently negotiating pillar two payments. We are not in a position to know what the future funding arrangements will be there. In negotiating the CAP, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are very aware that the needs of upland farmers must be met because, as we have already indicated, that is an extremely vulnerable sector of the agricultural industry.

William McCrea: The Minister has been very generous in taking interventions. Are any other finances available from Europe that can help the regions in the midst of a crisis like the present one?

David Heath: We have investigated that, and the honest answer is that there probably are not at present, because we are talking about total sums that are below the threshold level for the crisis payments. We have a further difficulty in the United Kingdom: the rebate arrangements come into play, which sometimes makes it difficult for us to avail ourselves of specific funding streams from the European Union in any case. In this instance I do not believe there is any immediate funding that we could draw on which would alleviate the situation.
	To return to the scheme that I announced, the amount that I indicated reflects the very latest information on stock losses identified by the National Farmers Union. We are working closely with the NFU, the National Fallen Stock Company and other industry representatives to finalise the arrangements for funding and ensure that that goes to farmers in the worst affected areas and those who have suffered the greatest losses.
	Details of the scheme and how to apply will be made public as soon as possible. Farmers should retain receipts and other documentary evidence, so that the collection of fallen stock can be verified once the scheme is under way. I hope that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland will make her constituents aware of that. It is certainly not my intention to limit payments to those who have registered with or used the National Fallen Stock Company, but I want to find the most efficient mechanism for
	distributing public funds so that they get to the people who need them as quickly as possible.
	Funding has been made available in Northern Ireland and Scotland to meet the costs of fallen stock collection services for farmers affected by the severe weather. As my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire said, the Welsh Government have taken a number of steps to help farmers, including making a donation to farming charities to assist them in supporting farming families.
	I am pleased that a robust programme of support has been made available. However, I emphasise that many individual farmers will face a huge bill to replace their lost animals. We have to make that point to people who do not understand this matter. There is not only the cost of recovering and looking after rescued animals, including the extra feed costs, but the loss of a significant part this year’s lamb crop. Because of the loss of hefted ewes, a number of the surviving lambs will also have to be retained. There is therefore a cumulative effect on farmers.
	It is right that we have focused on what is happening immediately on the ground in north-west England and the Welsh hills, but we also need to look towards the longer term, as has been said. In May, the Secretary of State will therefore host a summit of farming sector representatives, farming charities and banks. The meeting will highlight the financial impact that the exceptional weather—not just this event, but across the board—is having on some farm businesses. We will see what more can be done to support farmers who are struggling financially.
	This is an exceptional circumstance, and I am grateful that we have had the opportunity to discuss it this evening. I make no apologies for the number of interventions that I have taken from hon. Members, because this matter is crucial to the communities that they represent and I wanted them to have replies. Farmers are by no means out of the woods yet. DEFRA officials and Ministers will remain in close contact with farmers’ organisations and those who are helping to deal with the problems on the ground. I thank them all for their tremendous efforts to deal with this huge problem. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and other hon. Members for giving us the opportunity to discuss a matter that we should be discussing. I hope that the things that we have done have lightened the load of those who have been seriously affected by this disastrous situation.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.